This is a follow-up article on baby Isaiah; who was taken off of life support on March 11,2010 after his parents fought a court battle to keep him on life support. Sadly,the second opinion they received, from a neurologist in the US, said Isaiah would never breathe on his own so they finally agreed to take him off of life support.

What gets me is the hospital did not act in a timely manner and decide to give her a c-section after 40 hour labor! I would think ultrasound and fetal monitors during the labor would have indicated there was a problem and that the baby was wrapped in his umbilical cord.  I know here in the US; I was well cared for during my first sons birth with fetal monitors and one even placed on his skull during labor because there was a fear of having to perform an emergency c-section because my labor was long and the babies heart rate was dropping. Thankfully, all worked out,my husband was able to assist with cutting the umbilical cord and I was able to deliver him naturally, with an epidural of course, and I gave birth to a healthy and happy baby boy.

During my second pregnancy, I also had a long labor, even though my water had broken shortly following admission. Once again, at a different hospital and with a different physician and nurse, we were well cared for and my second son was born without incident; despite learning the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck! The doctor quickly cut the umbilical cord allowing our son to cry out and gain his full color. Thankfully, all worked out and we again welcomed another healthy baby boy. My experiences lead me to believe the hospital in Canada and the doctors and staff did not provide the best care and judgment in the case of baby Isaiah. I am glad to hear there is going to be an inquiry and hope the family pursues a medical malpractice suit. It seems to me more should have been done to prevent a 40 hour labor and end in the brain damage and eventually death of baby Isaiah.  The good news is they are expecting a second baby due in November. May God bless them with a happy and healthy baby and a safe pregnancy. I will never forget the story of baby Isaiah, as I am sure they will never forget holding him in their arms as he was taken off of life support.

[Leaderpost.com]Rebecka May with her son Isaiah, in an undated family photo. Isaiah died March 11, 2010, after being taken off life support.

Photograph by: May Family, edmontonjournal.com

EDMONTON — A nursing professor wants a public inquiry into the case of baby Isaiah James May, whose brief life saw him become the subject of a high-profile legal battle as his parents fought to keep him on life-support.

Donna Wilson, a University of Alberta nursing professor, said the province's health minister should investigate to determine if the Rocky Mountain House Hospital, where Isaiah was born Oct. 24, followed the right procedures to determine the risks and the potential need to send Isaiah's mother to a larger hospital or end the labour by performing a C-section.

The baby was born after 40 hours of labour with his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck.

He was later airlifted to the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton.

Doctors said the child should be removed from life-support, leading his parents to launch a legal bid to keep their little boy alive long enough for them to get a second opinion.

Earlier this month, after that second opinion confirmed Isaiah had severe brain damage and would never be able to breathe on his own, he was removed from life-support and died in his parents arms.

"No one else should have to go through that experience that young couple had," Wilson said. "This really needs to be a training or learning opportunity. Where are the standards to protect future women and families from this?"

Wilson said a public inquiry needs to determine if Alberta hospitals, including the one in Rocky Mountain House, have appropriate standards in place that suggest how long a woman should be in labour before specialists are called in or the woman is moved to a bigger hospital with more expertise.

Isaiah's mother, Rebecka May, agreed.

Read more

baby, pregnancy, complications

As reported by IBD this article covers specific sections of the newly passed healthcare reform bill passed by Democrats in Congress:

Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up
a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do
that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750
annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that
reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that
cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day,
drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s
because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on
the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with
lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no
longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers
prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover
preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health
insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover
preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s
what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that
doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy
until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services,
emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care,
mental health and substance use disorder services, including
behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and
habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and
wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric
services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover
pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough,
your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough,
your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own
violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums?
Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that
provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full
actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything
lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d
like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for
individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees)
and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then
you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000
under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend
that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending
arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from
their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking
over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that
measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of
care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by
other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational
purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene
in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you
must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1,
2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t
have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your
hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is
located in a country where, over the last five years, population
growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601
(i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than
200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet
costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review
and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from
the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what
you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs
you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So,
if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will
be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under
reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in
2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before
settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a
pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for
research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from
medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will
pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if
you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be
10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical
device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D?
Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for
medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how
to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough.
(Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from
insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends
on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs.
So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of
the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the
reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3
billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018
(Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to
better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO
is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section
9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar
you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you
file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the
money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will
also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you
know how to spend the money you earned better than the government?
Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax
on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money
you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

So those of you that supported this health care reform, I hope you are happy with some of the freedoms and health care options you are giving up and what you will be forced to pay in order to have the government making decisions for you and your family about your life,body and overall health. So much for the pro-choice 'my body, my choice' mantra. 

In addition,who will you turn to when the government committees deny your claims or say they can't cover certain tests?? According to reports, Medicare and Medicaid are government insurance programs that deny the most claims and pay doctors the least, because of this many doctors are already not accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients. Once more people are covered under this new government mandated health insurance program and insurance companies are forced to take high risk patients and those with pre-existing conditions; expect your rates to go up. 

Like in Europe and other countries with government regulated health insurance, it will eventually lead to less options for consumers because insurance companies will go out of business because people won't be able to afford the increased premiums to cover more patients and those with higher health risks, then the government option will be your only option. You will not have free choice to choose from various insurance companies,and what doctors or coverage you need. Instead, you will have the options mentioned above, among other restrictions and limitations. Rather than reducing health care expenses, you will have less medical options, may have to take less tests and/or have less doctors and services to help care for you. Why would you want to accept mediocre care when your life and your families life depends on it??  Now our only hope is that this entitlement program can be repealed or amended on a true bipartisan level and offers true reform and reduced costs by including such things as tort reform and interstate insurance options. While there were some amendments added to the bill and some items both parties agreed on the votes were not partisan. Some items highlighted by Huffington Post neglect to include the ramifications of these 'effects' of the health care bill; many of which won't take effect until 2014;while subsidies will become unsustainable long before then or soon after. This bill was less about reducing medical costs, but is more about controlling health care and 1/6 of our economy;increasing taxes on an already highly unemployed system with falling tax revenues.

health, politics, reform

I came across this article on Sky News today. This is a perfect example of junk science creating undue fear in people. I wonder how many children and families are growing up in fear of 'global warming', despite the scientific evidence that debunks it and the recent 'climategate' emails that were released admitting to creating false numbers/data to serve a political agenda. Here is just one story of media hype and the global warming myth gone wrong:

A baby girl has survived for three days with a bullet in her chest as she lay surrounded by the bodies of her parents and her toddler brother, according to reports.

A handgun was used to kill both adults and the family's toddler son

The adults had allegedly shot their seven-month-old daughter and two-year-old son before turning the gun on themselves at a house in Argentina.

The couple, Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, apparently had agreed a suicide pact over fears about global warming.

Their son, Francisco, died instantly after being shot in the back, the Clarin news website reported.

But the baby girl, whose named has not been released, [because the parents still hadn't given her a name]survived the apparent murder attempt after a bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.

Three days after the killings, neighbours smelled a strong odour coming from the house and contacted police who discovered the massacre.

The baby, who was found crying face up in a cot and covered in blood, was rushed to hospital by the emergency services in the town of Goya.

Doctors said she was severely dehydrated but was making a good recovery.

On a table in the house, police discovered an apparent suicide note by the girl's parents in which they outlined their worries about global warming.

The toddler's body was found face down in his bed, while the father was lying on a bed in another room with a bullet in his chest.

And in the kitchen was the children's mother who also had a bullet in her chest and a gun in her hand.

Police said five rounds had been fired. The case is being treated as an alleged double murder-suicide, said el-litoral.com.ar.

How many others feel the way this family did and have suicide pacts to end their lives and their children's lives in fear of global warming? The whole thing is disturbing and the worst part about it is that our government continues to believe in this 'junk science' and intends to pass policies to stop 'global warming' even though the earth has proven to be cooling and global cooling is expected to continue. Who should be held responsible for this hoax and the death of this family? Al Gore??