Strollerderby : medical

Doctors Call for Autopsies to Understand Stillbirth

JeanneSager — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:19:00 GMT

Thousands of pregnancies end every year in stillbirth - a baby dead in the womb sometime after the twenty-week mark or dead sometime during the birthing process.

It's heartbreaking for parents, but perhaps even harder for parents to take is the mystery. Of more than twenty-five thousand stillbirths each year, a full third are for unexplainable causes.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is calling for doctors to perform more autopsies on stillborn babies to unravel the mystery of stillbirth.

The goal is to reduce future stillbirths - or determine whether they can be prevented. The March of Dimes estimates stillbirth rates have dipped fifty percent in the last twenty years alone thanks to better technologies and healthcare practitioners' vigilance. They now know who has an increased risk of stillbirth - women thirty-five and older, women who suffer malnutrition and/or inadequate prenatal care, pregnant women who smoke and drink. They also have a host of causes for the two-thirds of stillbirths that are explainable - everything from placental defects to bacterial infection.

With the autopsies, they hope to rid the world of the other third. The question is how parents will take the suggestion from their doctor. Stillbirth is a traumatizing experience for parents, and the last thing a lot of parents want to do is turn their baby over to a scientist to cut, poke and prod.

Will parents be able to look past that and see the greater good? To see that they can make a difference for other parents in the long run?

Image: American Pregnancy Association

Dennis Quaid and Family Receive Settlement from Hospital

SunnyChanel — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:29:00 GMT

Dennis Quaid and his wife had quite a scare a little over a year ago. After their twins were born they were given a dangerous overdose of Heparin, the blood thinner that was administered to the newborns. Lucky, the twins recovered undamaged. Needless to say, the Quaids sued. They went after the maker of the Heparin blaming bottles that were poorly labeled. Although they sued the pharmaceutical company, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the hospital where the babies were born took responsibility. Yesterday, the Quaids reached a settlement with the hospital at the tune of $750,000. The hospital isn’t actually admitting wrongdoing and the Quaids can still “pursue claims for the children”.

Sadly, there are a scary amount of hospital errors in dealing with newborns and infants. One issue is the difference in quantities to give and adult vs. babies, others are just plain old mistakes, human error striking again. Most families don’t have the resources to follow up with a lawsuit in cases like this. The Quaids were lucky enough to demand some consequences, something that needed to be addressed since there were several patients there who were also given an overdose.

Do you think that the hospital settled the case due to its’ high profile nature?

Via AP - photo via Celebrity Baby Blog

Conjoined Twin Surgery: One Lives, One Dies

Brett Singer — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:30:00 GMT

An operation to separate the one-week-old conjoined twins, named Hope and Faith, resulted in the Hope's death. Faith is still alive, with a "50-50 chance of survival," according to published reports.

The twins were born last week to Laura Williams. At 18, she is said to be the youngest woman ever to give birth to conjoined twins in Britain.

Listen to this: "The sisters were joined from the breastbone to the top of the navel. They shared their blood circulation but had their own organs, though they were joined at the liver and intestines." Can you imagine? I can, but not easily.

The doctors who performed the separation procedure wanted to wait but "the twins' health was deteriorating," which led to the emergency surgery.

So sad. I mean, what can you say? At least one of them survived? That's good news, right? Somehow it doesn't offset the sadness of the other half of the story. The fact that the twins' names are Hope and Faith got to me even more.

Source: AFP via Google

Missing Girl Reunited With Father

High School Student in Hospital After Scavenger Hunt

British Teen Makes History with Siamese Twins

Woman Swings Crowbar At Trick Or Treaters

Chicago Woman Lived With Dead Siblings For 20 Years

Christina Applegate has double mastectomy

Brett Singer — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:30:00 GMT

MSNBC is reporting that Christina Applegate had a double mastectomy three weeks ago. She was diagnosed with cancer in one of her breasts earlier this month. She decided to have both breasts removed because, "Her mother battled breast cancer, and she tested positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation linked to breast and ovarian cancer."

She plans to have reconstructive surgery, "over the next eight months," and seems to be dealing with the whole thing fairly well, all things considered: "I’m going to have cute boobs 'til I'm 90, so there’s that…I'll have the best boobs in the nursing home. I’ll be the envy of all the ladies around the bridge table."

Applegate has had an amazing career, especially if you consider where she started – as bimbo Kelly Bundy on "Married With Children" way back in 1987 on some new network called Fox. Her film appearances include "Anchorman" and "The Sweetest Thing", and she was the main draw for the sitcoms "Jesse" (42 episodes) and "Samantha Who?" (15 episodes and counting, currently nominated for an Emmy). She also appeared on Broadway in "Sweet Charity." Not bad for someone who began as a pure lust object for a whole bunch of boys (myself included). I'm glad to hear she's cancer free (I'm glad to hear anyone is cancer free, frankly), and that she sounds like she's dealing with what must be a very traumatic medical procedure as well as she can.

One side note: "Applegate’s cancer was detected early through a doctor-ordered MRI. She said she’s starting a program to help women at high risk for breast cancer to meet the costs of an MRI, which is not always covered by insurance." I didn't realize MRIs weren't always covered by health insurance; if that's true, that is a very bad thing.

Source/image: MSNBC

1-Year-Old Coping With Artificial Heart

Madeline Holler — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:02:00 GMT

They still use artificial hearts? Something about it sounds so early 80s to me. But I'm glad they're still around and, most likely, have vastly improved since the first one was implanted (and eventually rejected) by a guy in the U.S. now decades ago.

Here's why I'm glad: a 14-month-old boy in the U.K. is surviving on one as he waits for a heart transplant. Little Ollie the only person in Britian to be kept alive on one. He's been attached to it for more than 67 days.

The left side of his heart does not pump properly because the muscles have become "baggy" and his valves cannot shut properly. Brave Ollie underwent a seven-hour operation where two tubes were fed from his heart to the Berlin [the artificial heart] - which is bigger than he is. Ollie was diagnosed with a virus that weakened the left side of his heart, preventing it from pumping effectively.

Most of the "heart" is outside his body (unlike the artificial hearts of yore) and it works by pumping oxygenated blood into his body and diverting deoxygenated blood to his lungs.

His parents are waiting anxiously, of course, for an acceptable donor heart, which will likely come from continental Europe where organ donation is organized around an "opt out" scheme. That is, it is assumed that you want to donate your organs unless you've opted out. In Britain, organ donation is by opting in, as in U.S., which means fewer available.

Side note/question: Presumably little Ollie needs a smaller, kid-sized heart, meaning it would come from a child. In an opt-in system, how do we know whether children are donors, particularly in situations where the parents, who may be donors themselves, have also perished? I mean, if I were in a car wreck with my kids and the worst happened, I'd want every usable scrap of all of us sent out for others.

Are you a donor? Are your kids?

Kids and Needles: Help for a Pointed Affair

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:32:00 GMT

We put off our daughter's first blood test for six months because A. we are lazy, ignorant, unfeeling people, and B. we just could not understand, or stand to deal with, the thought of inserting a needle into her arm and leaving it there for, what? 30 seconds? Give her a singular shot and she practically explodes.

Of course, when the day finally arrived, the nurses drew equal parts blood and tears and our suspicions that this temporary procedure would forever scar our sensitive toddler were proven correct. (Insert melodramatic music here.) Drive her by the hospital today, and she hides her eyes and shouts "bye bye!" While it's nice to think she'll never develop a heroin problem, there's still got to be a better way to prepare her for needles that will surely come again.

Enter ManageIVpain.com -- a one-stop shop for dealing with needle-related pain. With comfort tips and great statistics and studies, it's a lifesaver for those looking to make doctor visits a little less painful. Plus there's a great wallet card you can print out for easy access to things like blood type and medical allergies. Next time we head to the doctor, I'm stopping here first.

Crude And Unusual Punishment: Gas Prices Affecting Children's Healthcare

makeitadouble — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:45:00 GMT

The ever-rising cost of crude oil is affecting consumers in more ways than just what they pay at the pump for gasoline, which reached a National average of $3.11 in mid-November. Many common household items are derived from oil (plastic products, polyester, synthetic rubber and soapless cleaners just to name a few) which, coupled with increased shipping costs, is causing most Americans to closely monitor their spending and cut-back where they can. I think we’ve all felt the pinch and have tried to phase out spending money on unnecessary items and amenities like that $6 Starbuck’s Caramel Macchiato on the drive to work, certain name brand products at the grocery store and the health care of our children.

According to a poll conducted over the summer, before the gas prices even passed the $3 gallon plateau, 6% of parents surveyed admitted to cancelling a doctor’s appointment and/or not buying medication for their children in 2007 due to the cost of gasoline. If these numbers are accurate, that equates to over 4 million children on a national level that have had a medical visit or medications postponed because of high gas prices. Now, I think the easy targets here are the heartless and gluttonous oil companies as well as the self-interested politicians and policy makers, but I am going against the grain on this one and placing the blame squarely on the parents.

If you’re a parent in the lower 6% of this bell curve who thinks sacrificing the health of your child is justified due to the global demand of crude oil causing the price per barrel to flirt with the $100 mark I’d like to walk you through a simple exercise. You’ll need a piece of paper and a pencil, preferably a No.2 (ink is derived from oil you know). Ready?

Make a list of everything you can possibly cut-back on or sacrifice as a way to save money due to the high cost of gasoline, but leave “Denying My Child Healthcare” off the list for now. I’ll give you a couple minutes.

Done?

Alright, now that you're done take your kid to the Doctor.

(Photo: Bloomberg.com)

"Shot Down": Babble Investigates the Anti-Vaccination Movement

JasonAvant — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:36:00 GMT

Show of hands: how many of your kids have had polio? Measles? Mumps? I'd venture to guess that most of you have vaccinated your kids against those and other diseases. There are a surprising number of parents who are opting out of vaccinations, and to many parents (myself included), that decision is seen as irresponsible and fraught with peril - not only for the child in question, but other kids who may come into contact with those who have not been vaccinated.

Over at Babble, reporter Liza Featherstone contributes a thoughtful but tough look at the anti-vaccination movement. She explores the myriad of reasons why some parents choose not to give their kids shots; chief among these are fears of autism, side effects, and actually contracting the disease that the vaccine was supposed to prevent. According to Featherstone, such fears are based on misinformation, inference, and flawed logic. Indeed, she wonders how it that people are "more willing to believe a random article on the internet than scientists who have spent their lives studying vaccines."

The problem here, notes Featherstone, is that the choice to not vaccinate has repercussions beyond one's own child. Featherstone cites outbreaks of whopping cough in Colorado, a state with a considerable number of "vaccine resistors" (also of note but not mentioned in the piece: an outbreak of mumps in the Midwest last year and another outbreak of measles in Boston - in the measles case, the outbreak was traced back to a computer programmer from India, a country where only 56% of the population is thought to be vaccinated against the disease. Gee.) So - to vaccinate, or not? Tell us what you think.

Kid's Ear Tubes Ineffective, Study Says

Karen Murphy — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:23:00 GMT

A new study published on Jan. 18 in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the routine insertion of tubes in the ears of otherwise healthy children has no effect on development through age 11. In children with excess fluid in their ears, the insertion of tubes (tympanostomy) to drain the fluid and improve hearing is one of the most common pediatric operations and has been generally believed to help prevent developmental problems. Not so, reports the study.

429 children younger than 2 months with persistent episodes of fluid in the middle ear were studied. They were randomly assigned in a clinical trial to undergo tympanostomy either right away or six to nine months later. In addition, a second roup of children were studied, also having persistant fluid in the ear but who did not receive the ear tubes. It was found that there was no significant difference between the children who received early tube placement and those who received later placement in terms of hearing, speech and academic skills. There also was no significant correlation in the second group between developmental achievement and periodic episodes of fluid in the ears.

In other words, those tubes? They be doing nobody any good. Unless, of course, there is a history of acute infection. but for fluid and nothing but fluid? The new recommendation based on the study is to wait a year and see.