Abortion Increases Breast Cancer Risk?

Thanks to Chuck Serio for this link.

Less than two months since the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]

Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.

Given the push by feminists for more contraception earlier, I don't really expect to see any lefty bloggers (*cough* Amanda Marcotte *cough*) changing their minds about marketing The Pill to your 15-year-old. But they should, considering the risks.

Swine Flu: Overreaction?

The reaction and overreaction to the swine flu is creating more panic and problems for Americans.

I'm all for sensible precautions--washing your hands, covering your mouth and nose when you sneeze or cough, staying home if you are sick--but some responses are bordering on hysteria.

Closing Mayfest? Because Texas has 26 cases of swine flu? What's next? Mandatory surgical masks for everyone?

We're not talking the Great Influenza here. Instead, we're releasing thousands of students from school, who will invariably end up circulating in malls, libraries, movie theaters, and other public venues, spreading whatever germs--including swine flu--they may have. Is this really the best way to handle germs? I think not.

Political correctness seems to be affecting some of the reporting on swine flu. To call the child who died at a Houston hospital "a Texas toddler" would be like calling me a "West Virginia child" whenever I went to visit my grandparents. The child was Mexican. That's not a pejorative. It's a fact.

If I were a paranoid freak, I'd be concerned that President Obama will use the flu to round up all us right wing extremists just like another Democrat president/hero did. But I'm not paranoid.

Swine Flu

It's the Republicans' fault. Even though Democrats have been in charge of spending for the last two years and they currently run the entire federal government.

When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year's emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.

Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse -- with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy.

But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans -- led by Maine Senator Susan Collins -- aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.

Of course, the reality is different from propaganda like this piece. If pandemic preparation were so important to Democrats, they could have cut $900 million in pork projects to cover the costs. Maybe even a project or two that benefit Obey's son.

On top of this, there's little evidence money from the stimulus bill would have been spent soon enough to prevent the dozen deaths in the U.S. reported so far (btw, that would be $75,000,000 per life saved). And, as Don Surber notes, Democrats could put through an emergency appropriation to cover the swine flu emergencie.

An emergency appropriation could be made after the fact — as we do every disaster be it hurricanes, tornadoes or blizzards. Is he saying by not appropriating money for these certain disasters that Democrats favor hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards?

Of course not.

This is just the plan of the Democrats running every branch of the federal government to shirk their responsibility and blame Republicans. Every problem, national emergency, natural disaster or downturn is going to be blamed on Republicans, even though they aren't in charge of anything. This White House has already proven that, when faced with difficulties, it is unwilling to solve problems. The main goal is to score political points.

UPDATE: Maybe if Obama had a Secretary of Health and Human Services, he wouldn't need to blame people who aren't in power.

UPDATE: Chuck Schumer opposed flu pandemic funding, too. And one person at Daily KOS is sane. Miracles abound!

Adverse Effects from the HPV Vaccine

Back in February, I wrote this post on Texas governor Rick Perry ordering all girls to be vaccinated with the human papillomavirus vaccine. HPV causes, among other things, genital warts and cervical cancer.

At the time, I questioned whether the government should be mandating teenage girls to get this vaccine when (a) it hadn't been tested long enough on teenagers and (b) the assumption that all teenage girls were having sex and needed the protection was both paternalistic and hysterical. The vaccine hasn't been on the market long enough to know how long it works (current recommendations are for girls as young as nine to receive the vaccine). I was also concerned about the rights of parents to refuse injecting more bugs into their children for dubious purposes. If a girl turns 18 and wants the vaccine, that's her right. But I also think parents have the right to object to vaccines like this being mandated for their children.

Of course, Amanda Marcotte jumped to the perfectly logical conclusion that parents who objected to the vaccine just wanted their daughters to die of cervical cancer. I mean, it couldn't be that the vaccine might be unsafe, right?

Well, sorry to break the news to the Pandagonistas, but Judicial Watch has released new documents from the Food and Drug Administration which show Gardasil might not be as safe as claimed before.

Judicial Watch...today released new documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,824 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, including as many as eight deaths related to the vaccine. Judicial Watch had previously obtained 1,637 reports relating to Gardasil on May 15, 2007, bringing the known total to 3,461 adverse reactions including eleven deaths since FDA approval...

From May 10 to September 7, 2007, the 1,824 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 347 serious reactions. Of the 77 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 33 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities. Other serious side effects continue to be reported including, paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

It sounds to me like this vaccine needs more study before being mandated, even if protective parents are accused of wanting their kids to get cancer.

10 Foods You Should Be Eating But Aren't

Via Brothers Judd blog comes this Men's Health article on 10 foods you don't eat but should. The foods are:

--Beets

--Cabbage

--Guava

--Swiss chard

--Cinnamon

--Purslane

--Pomegranate juice

--Goji berries

--Prunes (disguised as "dried plums")

--Pumpkin seeds

I'd never heard of purslane or Goji berries, but I know I can find most of the rest of these around town. Any luck getting kids to eat them, though?

KIdney Donation Show a Hoax

I hadn't written about the Dutch game show where sick contestants vie for a kidney transplant. I've been burned previously by blogging about things that turned out not to be true. Once again, the outrageous turns out just to be an elaborate public relations ploy to get more people to donate organs.

Captain Ed discussed the fact that market forces take over in virtually any human situation, and organ donation is no different. The problem is that we've decided to make it different. That is, we've determined that human organs should be donated and not paid for.

This creates a huge supply and demand problem, because most people either don't think about donating their organs or are squeamish about doing so. That leads to rationing, which is why 18 people die per day waiting for a transplant organ.

Lamentably, too many transplant professionals are resigned to rationing. The alternative is to create a larger supply of organs -- and the most likely way to achieve it is through a safe, regulated system in which donors can receive compensation for their organs. The idea of rewarding living donors for a kidney, or their estates if they give an organ after death, has long been taboo. Yet as thousands die every year the idea is being taken more seriously -- and it should be.

A growing number of physicians, legal scholars and ethicists are urging pilot studies of a regulated system with strong donor protections. This would require Congress to amend the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act so people who give organs could receive "valuable consideration." Such consideration could take many forms, perhaps something as simple as offering them lifelong Medicare coverage. This could also serve as a compelling incentive to other prospective donors. Or Congress could grant waivers so that states can implement their own creative incentive ideas, perhaps using tax credits or tuition vouchers.

As one commenter at Captain's Quarters pointed out, everybody else gets compensated for their contribution: the doctor, the nurses, the staff, the hospital. They all get compensated. But not the donor, and sometimes insurance won't even pay for the costs that donor endures.

It may be unseemly to talk about compensating donors (I can see the guests lining up for Jerry Springer now), but there are only two ways of increasing donors: by law and by compensation. We don't want to mandate that people must donate their organs; it would be a strange argument for the pro-abortion crowd to make that bodily integrity is important when wanting to kill one's offspring but not important when considering one's own DNA-bearing organs.

So, we are left with compensating donors. Will this create some scenarios where poor people donate more organs than wealthy ones, thereby "exploiting" the poor. Possibly. And it would certainly put some truth in that urban myth about waking up in a bathtub of ice cubes and finding your kidney gone.

But we compensate people for donating plasma. It seems like the best way to encourage voluntary organ donation is by some compensation for it.

Senator Johnson May Return by Fall

I found it encouraging to read that Senator Tim Johnson may be returning to Capitol Hill by the fall.

If you recall, Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage in December and there were some worried that he wouldn't recover, but it looks like he is making remarkable strides.

I may not agree with Johnson politically, but it is heartening to see him returning to a more normal life.

Proposal Blocks Federal Funding for HPV Vaccine

A Georgia Congressman introduced legislation to block federal funding for the HPV vaccine.

Several states are considering making the HPV mandatory for girls. Texas governor Rick Perry bipassed legislative approval and issued an executive order mandating the vaccine for 12-year-old girls.

"Mandating the HPV vaccination is both unprecedented and unacceptable," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican, who is an obstetrician and gynecologist. "Whether or not girls get vaccinated against HPV is a decision for parents and physicians, not state governments."

Because HPV is unlike communicable diseases such as measles and mumps, which children are routinely vaccinated against, Mr. Gingrey said HPV vaccines should be taken voluntarily. He is chairman of the Republican Healthcare Public Affairs Team and chairman of the Healthcare Reform subcommittee of the Republican Policy Committee.

Barring federal funding for the vaccines will put a bit of a crimp into Governor Goodhair's plans. I can't wait to see him explain the costs to the taxpayers.

Do These People Have Kids?

I subscribe to a lot of on-line parent sources. These newsletters and websites are chock full of interesting information and suggestions. Some of them are more helpful than others.

Today, I got a newsletter from ivillage.com, I like ivillage a lot because, unlike some sources, they have a lot of information for children of all ages. Given that my children range from elementary school to high school, going to one site saves me a lot of time and aggrevation.

This week's ivillage newsletter came with the kids snack swapper. It is sort of a cool idea; plug in some snack kids tend to want (like, say, "cheese puffs"), then hit the big Swap It button to see what is suggested.

The suggestion? Cheese flavored rice cakes.

Cheese flavored rice cakes? Do they honestly believe that, if your kid is longing for cheese puffs, cheese flavored rice cakes will satisfy them? Have they tried offering frozen grapes to a kid who wants candy? I don't think so.

I'm all for offering children healthy alternatives to junk food. My best solution so far is to make sure there's nothing but the healthy stuff in the house for them to eat. So, if they want a snack, they can have yogurt or cheese sticks but no potato chips or cookies. Of course, this sometimes makes for an unhappy husband, but I figure he can always make a trip to the store if he's gotta have ice cream. :)

Citizens Need Documentation to Receive Federal Money

The New York Times has this boo-hooer that some people have lost their Medicaid benefits because they can't prove they are U.S. citizens.

The story gives several anecdotes of people who have had to postpone treatments or paid for medications themselves because they don't have the documentation needed for Medicaid. The documentation required is a birth certificate and sometimes a driver's license.

My question is this: why is this so onerous?

In Texas, you can even order your birth certificate on-line.

I know the arguments against identification: poor people don't have computers or credit cards. They don't have driver's licenses or other I.D. They can't take off time from work to get the birth certificates.

Yes, it's terrible that to receive government funds one has to go through some personal trouble. But the point of needing documentation is so we know who is getting Medicaid and whether or not the people involved are eligible. A certified copy of one's birth certificate is 22 bucks in Texas. Is the argument that people can't find $22? Is this like the woman whose kid died because she didn't have $80 for a tooth extraction?

I'm sorry some people aren't receiving Medicaid who should be eligible for it. But like most things in life, you have to be able to prove you are who you say you are and that you are, indeed, eligible for the benefit you want to receive. This isn't callousness. It's the only way to keep the system from being defrauded.

Why Vaccinate Only Girls?

When Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to unilaterally mandate that girls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus, I wondered why only girls were getting the vaccine. Obviously, they get cervical cancer and boys don't, but girls also get HPV from boys. If vaccination against an STD is such a great thing, why not make it mandatory for all children?

Jessie Hill at
Prawfsblawg had the same question.

The rationale for this is presumably that only girls and women are capable of getting cervical cancer, the most serious condition caused by HPV, as well as that Merck has so far obtained approval of the drug only for women and girls. Yet, while the data are somewhat uncertain on its usefulness for boys, there might be some benefit for boys receiving the vaccine as well – such as protection against genital warts and penile and anal cancer. These latter two conditions are admittedly extremely rare, but cervical cancer is also rare (though much less so). In addition, it stands to reason that immunizing boys who can carry and transmit the HPV virus will further protect girls against HPV and cervical cancer, because it will increase the “herd immunity” effects of mandatory vaccination. If only girls are required to be vaccinated, it is likely that a larger percentage of those girls will nonetheless get the virus, as reported by a recent London Times article, which said that, according to one study, if boys are vaccinated “more than 90 per cent of cases of the disease caused by the four commonest strains of human papilloma virus (HPV) could be eliminated, instead of just over three quarters if only girls were vaccinated.” (Note: The study assumed that only 70% of girls would be vaccinated.) A similar argument was made here. (Thanks to the Reproductive Rights Prof Blog for the informative posts on this.) Of course, even if all girls are required to be vaccinated, some will not be, due to their own or their parents’ noncompliance, or due to religious or conscientious or health exemptions; in addition, for some subset of those who are vaccinated, the vaccine will not be effective. This is why it makes sense to require boys to be vaccinated as well.

I'd love to see the arguments presented against mandating vaccination of boys. But Hill goes on to question if this could be a Title IX situation.

So, I’m wondering whether there are any legal (constitutional, Title IX, etc.) implications to vaccinating only girls. It seems to me that there are, but I have heard so little on this issue that it makes me think I am missing something. Laws that would require only girls to be vaccinated would be gender discriminatory on their face; is this discrimination justified simply by the fact that the drug is only approved for girls at present? Or by the fact that girls are most likely to suffer the most serious consequences about HPV? And if the latter, don’t we at least have a narrow tailoring problem, since the law would be even more protective of girls if it required boys to be vaccinated as well, assuming the vaccine would not be harmful and would probably be beneficial to those boys as well?

I think this does present a Title IX problem since, as Hill points out, boys can have ill effects from HPV as well. The argument that only girls get cervical cancer doesn't take into account how girls can get the virus. If this really is a health issue, it seems to me much more reasonable to include boys in the mandate.

Virginia to Mandate HPV Vaccine for Girls

Following Texas's dubious lead, Virginia is poised to mandate vaccination for HPV for young girls.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday he will sign legislation requiring all sixth-grade girls to get vaccinated against a virus that could lead to cervical cancer.

Days after saying he had qualms about making the vaccine mandatory, Kaine predicted that the law is "going to be a model for other states to follow " and emphasized that it will be easy for parents to opt out.

There's no mention in the article about why parents might want to opt out or how much the vaccines will cost taxpayers. It seems to me that this is a bandwagon everyone wants to jump on because they think it makes them look "compassionate," as opposed to "reckless."

UPDATE: According to this article, the chairman of the panel that recommended the new HPV vaccine for young girls warned lawmakers not to make it mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, chairman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), also said he and panel members told Merck & Co., the drug Gardasil's maker, not to lobby state lawmakers to require the vaccine for school attendance.
"I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated," Dr. Abramson told The Washington Times. "And they heard it from other committee members."
Dr. Abramson said he opposes mandating Gardasil, which prevents the cervical-cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV), because the sexually transmitted HPV is not a contagious disease like measles and he is not sure states can afford to inoculate all students.
"The vaccines out there now are for very communicable diseases. A child in school is not at an increased risk for HPV like he is measles," Dr. Abramson said.
In addition, Dr. Abramson said a discussion about making the vaccine mandatory should not be had until states show the money is available to vaccinate every child, adding, "I don't see that yet."

The story goes on to point out that there's also some controversy about giving the vaccine to girls so young.

Middle-school girls inoculated with the breakthrough vaccine will be no older than 18 when they pass Gardasil's five-year window of proven effectiveness -- more than a decade before the typical cancer patient contracts HPV, The Washington Times reported last week.
Infectious disease specialists and cancer pathologists say the incubation period for HPV becoming cancer is 10 to 15 years -- meaning the average cervical cancer patient, who is 47, contracted the virus in her 30s and would not be protected by Gardasil taken as a teen.
Dr. Abramson said the panel thinks the vaccine will last for at least 10 years. Even if it provides 10 years of protection, it would still leave girls given the inoculation in the sixth grade vulnerable during their late 20s and early 30s, when most cervical-cancer patients contract HPV. At that point, another round of Gardasil would be necessary.

The vaccine has only been tested for about five years, meaning there's no data on long-term effectiveness or side effects. I'm leary of mandating a vaccine for a non-communicable disease to girls who are still growing. If adults wish to get this vaccine, that can be their choice.

UPDATE x2: Parents of three Texas girls have filed suit over Texas Governor Rick Perry's executive order mandating the HPV vaccine.

UPDATE x3: According to this article, a report from the Centers for Disease Control estimate that 20 million U.S. women have some form of HPV.

The $80 Death

By now, you've probably read about Deamonte Driver, the 12-year-old boy who died because he didn't get a tooth extracted.

Cost of the extraction: $80.

The story blames Medicare, but in my mind, the story brings up a different issue.

Dental insurance in the U.S. is a crock.

Regardless of the way the story is spun, you don't have to be poor not to have dental insurance. Dental insurance is a luxury for most people. Many companies don't even carry dental insurance, and those companies that do usually charge a lot of money for it. Recently, I was considering adding dental insurance to our family plan, but the cost was about 1/3 of medical insurance. It would be more cost effective to simply save the money and pay for the dentist's visits myself.

Secondly, most dental insurance is very poor, especially in comparison with the sorts of benefits one gets from medical insurance. Dental insurance usually covers regular check-ups and, perhaps, X-rays. But for any sort of dental treatment, including fillings, crowns, or root canals, dental insurance tends to work more like a discount plan, and a discount plan that isn't very good. In short, dental insurance sucks.

Deamonte Driver's death is a tragedy, but I hope it spurs more families to take care of their children's teeth.

Drugmaker Stops Lobbying HPV Vaccine

Via Dana at CSPT, comes news that Merck has decided to stop being quite so brazen in its attempt to grab government money for STD vaccines for 11-year-old girls.

Merck & Co., bowing to pressure from parents and medical groups, is immediately suspending its lobbying campaign to persuade state legislatures to mandate that adolescent girls get the company’s new vaccine against cervical cancer as a requirement for school attendance.

The drug maker, which announced the change Tuesday, had been criticized for quietly funding the campaign, via a third party, to require 11- and 12-year-old girls get the three-dose vaccine in order to attend school.

I'm glad to see the brakes being put on this, although it doesn't address the problem I face here in Texas, since Governor Rick Perry unilaterally decided this wasn't a parent's decision to "opt in." Of course, questions about Perry's ties to Merck came up, but that hasn't stopped Governor Goodhair.

Last month, the AP reported that Merck was channeling money for its state-mandate campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country.

Conservative groups opposed the campaign, saying it would encourage premarital sex, and parents’ rights groups said it interfered with their control over their children.

Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck’s timing, Haupt said Tuesday.

“They, along with some other folks in the public health community, believe there needs to be more time,” he said, to ensure government funding for the vaccine for uninsured girls is in place and that families and government officials have enough information about it.

Legislatures in roughly 20 states have introduced measures that would mandate girls have the vaccine to attend school, but none has passed so far. However, Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Feb. 2 issued an executive order requiring Texas girls entering the sixth grade as of 2008 get the vaccinations, triggering protests from lawmakers in that state.

Perry defended his order Tuesday, a day after lawmakers in Austin held a lengthy hearing on the issue but failed to act on a bill to override the order.

The concerns of parents aren't just knee-jerk reactions of fundamentalists to government mandates like some people would have you believe. The vaccine was tested for less than five years, and only on a small number of younger teenagers. In short, they don't really know what the long-term effects of this vaccine could be on your daughter.

As of now, the best way to combat HPV is:

(a) Avoid having sex before marriage (that means both of you)

(b) Stay monogomous (that means both of you) during marriage, and

(c) Have yearly Pap smears. And if you just can't do (a) or (b), then

(d) Use barrier method protection.

Pap smears are considerably cheaper than the HPV vaccine, which protects against about 70% of the viruses that can cause cervical cancer. Because of the cost, it's a better method for trying to protect women from cervical cancer, rather than allowing government to mandate a vaccine for a non-communicable disease.

About that One Ounce Baby...

It's always amusing when someone's snarky comment becomes reality.

The other day, blubonnet said this on this thread at CSPT:

1 and 1/4 oz fetus’s “life” is not the same as a woman’s life.

I responded by asking:

At what size do you consider the baby to be a baby? One pound? 1 1/2 lbs? 20 weeks?

The point being, of course, that a 1 1/2 lb. baby is physiologically the same whether it is in the womb or outside. In our country, however, the one outside the womb is the only one recognized as a baby.

It seems my comment wasn't far from the mark. According to this story,

Amillia is the new world record holder for a baby to survive through gestational age, according to the University of Iowa's national registry for the tiniest babies.

"We have a special baby here today because she was extremely premature at birth 21 weeks and 6 days," said neonatologist Dr. William Smalling. "There is no known survivor born this early to ever go home and not only is the baby going home she is thriving and doing well. It's a special day for us all here."

Surrounded by the team at Baptist Children's Hospital that has cared for her since her unexpected arrival, Amillia is now ready to go home. Doctors said they marvel at what the little girl has taught them.

"Well... I learned that we can work with babies this small," Smalling said. "Previously it was thought to be technically impossible."

"She showed us early on that she was a fighter and wanted to be here," said Dr. Paul Fassbach, a neonatologist.

Amillia was born Oct. 24, 2006. She was the world's fourth-smallest baby, weighing 284 grams (just under 10 ounces) when she was born. She was just 9.5 inches long -- barely longer than a ballpoint pen.

"We've never even really resuscitated babies this small right," Fassbach said. "Now, the recommendations for the American Academy of Pediatrics is that we can resuscitate babies that are 23 weeks or by birth weight over 400 grams. So, babies were considered non viable or too immature to survive outside the uterus if they were born earlier than that."

I wonder...is 10 ounces enough?

On Universal Healthcare

I commented in this post that if people want to know what universal healthcare would look like, they should look at the military system with its long waiting periods for simple procedures, limited doctors' appointments, and other assorted problems (I specifically didn't address the charges of filth...that was never my experience with military healthcare, nor do I think it is the norm).

I commented on Shakespeare's Sister, which ran a post on the military care article as well. Shakespeare's Sister (a.k.a. Melissa McEwen) takes the opportunity to dump all the problems of the military health system on George W. Bush's lap (naturally), and I sought to correct her impression. I stated that the problem with military healthcare is long-standing, through Republican and Democratic administrations, in times of war and times of peace. In short, one couldn't blame the current problems on President Bush without acknowledging that the system was already broken when he inherited it. I then made my comment about it being a view of universal care.

SS didn't like this comparison, calling it "a stupid thing to say." As is usual on liberal blogs, there was the usual chorus echoing her remarks, leaving the impression that universal care is absolutely wonderful in other countries and any negative comments are just "stupid things to say." On a side issue, I will say that both SS and the commenters were far more polite than I usually see on left-leaning blogs and that was commendable.

But then, is it true that socialized medicine works oh, so well in other countries that to be against it is simply wrong-headed? I think not.

I found this site, which gives many of the arguments against socialized medicine, but most interesting to me were the links to examples of poor medicine when the government controls it.

--One in 10 patients admitted to National Health Service hospitals in Britain is unintentionally harmed and almost a million safety incidents, more than 2,000 of which were fatal, were recorded last year, according to a report on Thursday.

--
Thousands of elderly National Health Service patients are dying because they are denied intensive care treatment after surgery, a study has found.
A six-year survey of four million operations found that 85 per cent of the most vulnerable patients do not get the intensive care that could save their lives or prevent serious complications.

As a result, it is estimated that up to 5,000 frail and elderly patients die each year because they are not put in intensive care beds for monitoring after their operations.

Rupert Pearse, who led the research, also claims that 25,000 more suffer life-threatening complications because of the care failures.

Among the causes are a lack of intensive care beds and "ageism" against older patients.

--British healthcare to be rationed. Britain's National Health Service is advising general practitioners to refer fewer patients to specialists and to restrict patients' access to a second opinion.
Local health agencies are to be told to cut general practitioner referral rates to those of the lowest 10 percent nationally, saving the government about $44 million a year, states a plan still in draft form, produced by the London Transition Team and discovered by the Times of London.

Emergency care practitioners should "redirect" 40-70 percent of patients to general practitioners or walk-in clinics, the documents state. Hospitals that treat people who should have been sent to general practitioners will not be paid.

--British body rejects drugs for cancer patients. Britain's cost-effectiveness medicines watchdog ruled on Friday that costly erythropoietin (EPO) drugs should not be used to treat anaemia caused by anti-cancer therapy, dealing a blow to drug firms and cancer campaigners.

The articles linked at this website are numerous and reinforce the point I tried to make at SS and here: government healthcare requires rationing of resources to patients. There's simply no way for the government to afford the best healthcare for every patient.

Healthcare is expensive. Anyone who has had to buy their own insurance knows this. The prices companies charge are ridiculous and they constantly look for reasons to raise one's rates. Even if you answer "no" to every risk question, they will still try to find some flaw in your history with which to decline some service or recommendation. But even with that, forcing everyone into the same system of healthcare creates an unwieldy situation which won't help the Americans it is designed to help.

Women to be Paid to Donate Eggs

They said it was "ridiculous" to speculate about people farming human eggs for scientific research, but now we have it.

Women will be paid to donate their eggs for scientific research in a landmark decision that will prompt a fierce backlash from leading figures in the medical world.
The Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government regulator of this highly sensitive area, is expected to approve the policy when it meets on Wednesday. At present, clinics are not allowed to accept eggs donated for scientific research unless they are a byproduct of either IVF treatment or sterilisation. Campaigners for change say that this has led to a chronic shortage of eggs for scientific use.

The HFEA's influential Ethics and Law Committee has already privately recommended the controversial switch, and the authority is expected to follow this recommendation. The committee based its opinion on a 64-page report, seen by The Observer, summarising the arguments. 'The potential scientific gains outweigh the objections,' said one source closely involved in the decision.
The authority will argue that allowing women to donate eggs more generally for scientific use may help stem cell researchers to find cures for heart problems, infertility, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Ah, yes, the old "ESC might help find cures for Alzheimer's" canard. Leave out the fact they haven't found one single use for ESC, but that's just a trivial detail to the monsters that want this stuff.

I wonder how the feminists view enticing women to harvest eggs for this research? Is that just another "choice" for women to make? And considering the procedure used is considered "possibly dangerous" by doctors, is this a "choice" we should be condoning?

Welcome to Military Healthcare

The Washington Post has this story on the neglect American soldiers are facing even at the crown jewel of the military healthcare system, Walter Reed.

But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients. Almost 700 of them -- the majority soldiers, with some Marines -- have been released from hospital beds but still need treatment or are awaiting bureaucratic decisions before being discharged or returned to active duty.

They suffer from brain injuries, severed arms and legs, organ and back damage, and various degrees of post-traumatic stress. Their legions have grown so exponentially -- they outnumber hospital patients at Walter Reed 17 to 1 -- that they take up every available bed on post and spill into dozens of nearby hotels and apartments leased by the Army. The average stay is 10 months, but some have been stuck there for as long as two years.

The system is straining at the seams and it shows.

I grew up using military healthcare because my father spent 21 years getting his ass shot at in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam to give us this "perk." It was one of the many promises Congress has made through the years to veterans, particularly those of the Greatest Generation, all of which have slowly been revoked as his age group dies out and becomes less of an important voting bloc.

I often tell people that if they want to see what universal healthcare would look like, they should spend a little time at a military hospital because that's what they'd get. Getting an appointment can take months, whether that appointment is just a routine physical or for surgery (I had to wait nine months for surgery when I was in college. I'd graduated by the time my appointment came up). Forget seeing a doctor when your kid is running 102 fever. You'll wait 12 to 15 hours to have the doctor tell you to go home and take ibuprofen.

It's more like benign neglect in the military healthcare world. They care first for soldiers, who get priority if they show up in uniform, and everybody else gets pushed to the back of the line because they aren't the soldier. I'm not complaining that soldiers got priority; I'm pointing out that long waits and limited care wait for anyone who enters such a system.

This isn't even addressing the sometimes shoddy healthcare that patients receive. I have a three-inch, Frankenstein-like scar on my elbow (it's faded enough now not to be an issue) from where I broke my arm at age 7 and had it repaired at the base. I never thought much about how ugly the scar is until my husband had to have his thyroid removed and I saw how beautiful a job the doctor did on him. But aside from my personal stories, law school torts books are filled with medical malpractice cases stemming from slipshod work by military doctors who are overworked and underpaid.

Typically, my family would use an outpatient clinic for sniffles and fevers, only going to the base for those 2 a.m. traumas or very serious problems. That's because it wasn't worth the hassle otherwise. For everyone who thinks universal healthcare is the panacea for whatever they think fails our current system, just spend some time at a base hospital or down at the county facility. That's your future.

P.S.--I'm not saying that some military care isn't excellent or that the price isn't right. It cost my parents $14 for my broken arm in 1971. What I'm saying is that the system is almost always overburdened and understaffed. I think that's what would happen with universal healthcare, too. Do you want to wait a year to have a hip replacement?

"No amount of carping, complaining or yelling and screaming is going to change that."

Says Texas Governor Rick Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, regarding the governor's order that all 12-year-old girls receive a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus.

Emphasizing the slight authority given Texas governors by history, two Austin lawyers say Gov. Rick Perry lacked the power to issue last week's order requiring girls to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.

Perry's office counters that as the state's chief official, he can guide executive branch agencies.

"No amount of carping, complaining or yelling and screaming is going to change that," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "If they want to challenge it, my guess is, they both know a trial lawyer or two to do their bidding. We'd be happy to take the governor's constitutional authority to court."

That sounds to me like Black was throwing down the gauntlet. He should be careful or some enterprising trial lawyer(s) will pick it up. Well, maybe they have:

Buck Wood, a lawyer whose career included work in Gov. John Connally's office in the 1960s, criticized the order. "This isn't even arguable. The governor doesn't have any power to dictate to any agency about what rules it makes."

Scott McCown, who served 14 years as a Democratic state district judge in Travis County, voiced similar concerns. Although state law permits governors to issue orders in emergencies, he said, Perry's move to protect young women doesn't clear that hurdle.

"It's a judgment call," said McCown, who initially commented in a column in Wednesday's American-Statesman. "But there is no way this is even close. There is no way this even qualifies" as an emergency.

The executive powers of Texas governors are notoriously restricted. The main power of governor is in being able to call the legislature into special session for 30 days. But executive orders? Let's see, Perry hasn't issued too many controversial executive orders. In fact, he hasn't done it at all (unless you consider creation of a Texas Task Force on Appraisal Reform to be cutting edge stuff).

The problem for Perry is that his bull-headedness on this issue has drawn way more attention to his heavy-handed approach instead of focusing it on why this vaccine should be mandatory. By not involving the legislature, he has virtually cut off debate among the electorate, and Texans are famously ornery.

"This is nuclear," said Rep. Dianne White Delisi, R-Temple. She spoke Wednesday as Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, circulated a letter to House colleagues to be sent to Perry, asking him to rescind the order.

"Regardless of whether it is a wise idea to vaccinate a child to prevent a sexually transmitted virus," Isett's letter says, "the legislative process is robust enough to give voice to every side of this issue."

Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for an expedited opinion on whether governors can issue executive orders.

"If so, does the law provide broad powers to grant executive orders, or are those powers limited to specific circumstances?" her letter asks.

More on the HPV Vaccine

I originally posted about Texas governor Rick Perry issuing an executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls be vaccinated with the new genital human papillomavirus vaccine. My main focus at that point was whether this should be a government function (and if so, should it be done by executive order, as opposed to going through the legislative process)?

Now, I'm more concerned with the process by which the vaccine was approved and the effects such a vaccine might have.

According to this column by Barbara Simpson, the vaccine was originally approved by the FDA back in June 2006, and pharmaceutical giant Merck has been lobbying states heavily since. At $360 a pop for the three-shot series, that's a lot of money for Merck.

The vaccine treats viruses that cause roughly 70% of all cervical cancers and genital warts. That leaves another 30% not covered by this vaccine. Hopefully, girls, their parents, and young women will be smart enough (and be informed by their doctors) that they still need yearly Pap smears even with this vaccine.

But more than just the fact that the vaccine only works on 70% of the viruses, I'm concerned about potential side effects. Because the dirt is always in the side effects that the pharmaceuticals never want to talk about.

Simpson cites that

in just six months, 82 cases reported to the government, involving neurologic symptoms, joint pain, fever and Guillain-Barre syndrome...

Fewer than 2,000 people were involved in the testing of Gardasil – with 102 adverse reactions, including juvenile, rheumatoid and regular arthritis, and 17 deaths, which were said to be unrelated.

So, our children would be forced to be injected with three doses of a vaccine that could cause serious side effects and we don't know the long term safety or efficacy.

Before anyone objects that this article comes from World Net Daily, I also found concerns raised here. This site raised a lot of questions.

--What are the various ingredients used in this vaccine?

--What are its possible interactions with medications, e.g., psychoactive drugs, antihypertensives, HRT, cholesterol-lowering agents?

--Are there any side effects seen in subsets of patients with medical conditions such as diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), seizure disorders, allergies and sensitivities (e.g., to yeast), and above all, the immunosuppressed?

--Is it really safe for preteens? The FDA has approved use of the vaccine for females between the ages of nine and 26. In Merck’s trials, however, only 250 nine-year-old girls and boys were tested with Gardasil. Where did these kids come from? The other question we ask ourselves is, "Would I volunteer my nine-year-old daughter to test a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease?"

--How long will protection last? Will boosters be needed? Or worse, will elimination of just four out of over 100 viral strains create a niche for other strains to fill?

--“Who really needs it?” Isn’t there a greater call for an inexpensive vaccine in developing countries than for mandating an expensive one in American school systems?

One of the things this article points out is that Pap smears and yearly exams are far less expensive and more accurate for detecting cancers. Since the vaccine isn't a substitute for these measures, is it really in the public interest for the government to mandate that people spend this money?

Some of the numbers are problematic. For example, Simpson talks about "only 2,000" people tested with the vaccine before approval. The Woman to Woman site discusses "27,000 girls and women" tested. And I also found this site, which says that "20,541 women" were tested, but of that number, "only 1,121 subjects were under 16," and they were only followed for about 18 months. I think it is generally safe to say about 20,000 subjects were used and they were followed for anywhere from one to four years. That's not a long time to predict long-term effects on a vaccine given to your nine-year-old.

The question truly becomes is the benefit worth subjecting your nine-year-old daughter to the risks? According to Amanda, only parents who would rather their daughters die from cancer than admit they'll have sex one day would be ambivalent about this vaccine. But then, we've had so much evidence of where Amanda's head is over the last two weeks that we really can discount anything she says these days.

For more arguments against the vaccine, see this post at a site I probably would never visit otherwise. ;)

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.