Archive for 'Conditions'
Study here targets childhood asthma.
The dramatic rise over the past two decades of children with asthma, nearly all diagnosed before age 6, has scientists looking at possible causes in utero.
Full StoryCancer study bill dropped, now aimed at lead-based paint removal grant.
Omaha Sen. Bob Krist won’t be getting the $650,000 he wanted for a lung cancer study involving veterans — the state budget is just too tight.
Full StoryScandal of danger chemical in baby bottles.
Britain’s biggest infant-products retailers are selling baby bottles made with a chemical banned by Canada and three US states and which scientists fear may cause breast cancer, heart disease, obesity, hyperactivity and other disorders, The Independent can disclose.
Full StoryYale study details how and why of BPA’s dangers.
Exposing a female fetus to a chemical found in plastics causes permanent changes in a daughter’s uterus that might result in cancer — and a research team led by a Yale doctor has figured out why.
Full StoryAdvocates sound alarm on cell phone radiation.
Mindy Brown is on a crusade to warn people about radiation from cell phones. It started after her husband, Fresno State football coach Dan Brown, developed brain cancer.
Full StoryMaine panel weighs cell phone cancer warning.
The Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing on a bill that would make Maine the first state to carry warnings that cell phones can cause brain cancer.
Full StoryAnger mounts over incinerator plan.
The environment ministry has it wrong – a proposed incinerator will harm, not help, Durham Region residents, a panel of opponents has warned, saying health and air quality will be seriously affected, leading to increased cancer rates, reproductive problems, and learning disabilities.
Full StoryMaine lawmakers mull cell phone health warnings.
Maine’s state Legislature could soon vote on a bill making the Northeast U.S. state the first to require that cellular phones carry warnings of a possible link between mobile phone radiation and brain cancer.
Full StoryFar south side environmental activist Hazel Johnson and her daughter ‘decided to stay here and fight’.
In the early 1980s, the cancer deaths of four little girls — whose bodies were so tiny they could fit in shoe boxes — forced Hazel Johnson to shift the focus of an organization she’d recently founded.
Full StoryCancer warning as scientists find potentially harmful chemical in fruit juices.
Fruit juices drunk by millions of children each day could contain a harmful chemical linked to cancer, scientists have warned.
Full StoryArsenic-contaminated water threat to southern Punjab inhabitants.
Southern Punjab is facing serious threat due to high-level arsenic contamination in the drinking water, which is causing cancer, still births, post-neonatal mortality and other diseases.
Full StoryDr. Quentin Young: Put Single Payer Back on the Table
One year after its much-ballyhooed launch, the Obama administration’s approach to health reform is now in serious disarray. The president’s health care summit on Feb. 25 is being portrayed as a last ditch bid to find some common ground with his “just say no” Republican opposition. He also faces an increasingly wary group of disgruntled Democrats, whose memory of the Massachusetts massacre — the election of a Republican to Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat — remains fresh. The summit proceedings, which will be televised in the name of “transparency,” will no doubt be laden with a formidable amount of stagecraft. They will be preceded by the unveiling of the president’s own legislative proposal — presumably the odious Senate bill with some tweaks — a few days before. But it’s almost certain that this latest White House initiative, undertaken with the stated goal of salvaging and passing at least some elements of the stalled congressional bills, is foredoomed. The House bill, contrary to many who believe otherwise, is disastrous. And if such a thing is possible, its Senate counterpart is even worse. Both would shovel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the private health insurance industry. Both would make it a federal offense, with fines, for a person to fail to buy the insurers’ shoddy products. Even so, at least 23 million people would remain uninsured under the new law. And those who have insurance would remain vulnerable to extort premium increases, not unlike Anthem Blue Cross’ recently announced premium hikes of up to 39 percent in California. While one could imagine the enactment of certain piecemeal measures that might ameliorate our condition — e.g., a simple prohibition of insurance company denials of coverage because of pre-existing conditions — these are precisely the stand-alone measures most stubbornly opposed by Republicans, conservative Democrats and their corporate patrons. Such concessions, in their eyes, must be linked to shoring up the very culprits who are most responsible for our health care mess. The presence of the for-profit health industry — the private health insurance conglomerate and the Big Pharma drug companies in the first place — in the legislative process has certainly been “transparent” from the get go. Through their lobbyists and campaign contributions , they shaped a bill that would enhance their domination of our health system. They are at the root of the catastrophe that passes for health care financing in the United States today. Of course, the conspicuous omission in the debate has been single-payer national health insurance proposal , an improved Medicare for All. This was assured on the Senate side when the powerful chairman of its Finance Committee, Max Baucus, D-Mont., informed the world that everything was on the table but single payer. How the chairman of a congressional committee, however powerful, can set the terms of debate in a democratic society by excluding such a popular and well-substantiated solution is hard to rationalize. Baucus did, of course, prevail, and what came out of the Senate was execrable. Like the House bill, it fails the three tests of genuine reform: universal coverage, quality improvement and cost control. One can reasonably suspect that President Obama now wants something — anything — to pass in Congress as evidence of the fulfillment of his campaign pledge to accomplish health care reform. But if he looks to the House and Senate bills as the starting point, his efforts will be in vain. It’s not too late for the president to re-embrace his earlier support for single-payer national health insurance and set the nation on the right path. Were he to lay out the facts to the American people and provide energetic leadership for this eminently rational proposal, he would get strong, grassroots support from the public. We’re now spending $8,000 per capita annually on health care, $2.5 trillion in total. That’s nearly one-fifth of our GDP . Yet our health outcomes rank among the lowest in the industrialized world. Some 45,000 people die each year chiefly because they have no health insurance , and medical bills and illness are now linked to nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies . This reality in the richest country in the world is unnecessary and intolerable. I suggest the president look to an improved and expanded Medicare program as the solution. Medicare, which was enacted in 1965 and which has served our elderly and the totally disabled so well, is a solid foundation to build upon. Enactment of an improved Medicare for All would save our nation $400 billion annually by eliminating the bureaucracy and paperwork inflicted on our system by the private insurers. That’s more than enough to provide universal, comprehensive care to everyone and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles. A single-payer system would also allow us to rein in costs and better allocate resources. We have a talented health care workforce. But to fully unlock their potential, we need to get out from under the greedy dictates of the health industry. Mr. President, it’s time to put single payer back on the table. Read more: Health Care Reform , White House’s Health Care Summit , Health Care , Politics News
Full StoryGas heater concerns gain support.
Mudgee parents concerned that unflued gas heaters in classrooms could cause respiratory illnesses have welcomed Asthma Foundation of NSW support for their cause.
Full StoryHow schools fail to protect pupils from asbestos danger.
Three out of four schools contain asbestos, which could be putting children at risk of cancer, a damning report warns. Many do not have appropriate protection measures in place, while management of the substance is ‘ineffective and at times dangerous.’
Full StoryTamara McClintock Greenberg: Can Overweight Women Trust Their Doctors?
Being a doctor these days is hard. But so is being a patient, especially if you happen to be female and overweight. A study last year found that more than 40% of doctors feel “frustrated” by obese patients. But feelings among doctors are not the only problem. Recent studies have found that a woman who is as little as 13 pounds overweight may receive less than optimal medical care. Women who are over 20 pounds on the wrong side of the scale are more prone to inaccurate diagnoses, have more trouble finding a fertility doctor for help with getting pregnant, and are less likely to receive early diagnosis and effective treatment for cancer. The research matches up quite accurately with my clinical experience. Over the years I have known many overweight women who have been misdiagnosed by their physicians. And though I realize that anyone can be misdiagnosed, the striking numbers of overweight women whose doctors have missed serious illness reinforces the belief that doctors think differently about those carrying extra pounds. Of course obesity is a serious problem and one that should be addressed. But weight gain is partially related to self-control, as well as genetic and biological factors. Many physicians, whom we often expect should know better, attribute being overweight solely to dietary habits. This is in spite of data on biological factors that are implicit in weight gain. Psychotropic drugs , which are taken by millions, cause people to put on pounds. Ironically, these medications are often prescribed by the very same doctors that are annoyed with their patients for being heavier than they should be. Additionally, though in need of further study, some have speculated on chemical and environmental factors that impact metabolism via hormone production. There is even speculation that environmental toxins are associated with the development of diabetes in some populations. That being said, some people simply do eat too much. And they can learn to change this behavior. But where are realistic discussions about today’s overwhelming guidelines about what is required of all of us to stay healthy? At last count, recommendations for crucial self-care behaviors for reducing heart disease, cancer and dementia include the following: manage weight, get plenty of exercise, avoid high fat and high cholesterol foods, eat several vegetables and fruits a day, floss at least once a day, get regular teeth cleaning, reduce meat consumption, don’t smoke, avoid sugar and other simple carbohydrates, and take medications strictly as prescribed. And then there are the more confusing recommendations– vitamin D intake (which experts don’t agree on), drinking alcohol (the amounts vary depending on the kind of disease you are trying to avoid) and eating a lot of fish (but not too much, because of mercury). And regarding mercury, how do we manage this potentially dangerous metal? Should we all rush to get our fillings replaced? And in this economy, who can afford it? As if that list weren’t comprehensive enough, for those of us especially worried about both the environment and our health, we are told that we should avoid foods with preservatives, eat organic, and ingest meat that is responsibly raised and without hormones. Though I personally agree with many health recommendations, this dizzying list of behaviors is quite frankly out of reach for most people. Work commitments, time and finances limit many from achieving these ideals. Doctors know this. Many physicians have trouble doing all that is needed to take care of themselves. Presumably, like the rest of us, they are too busy or too confused to follow the guidelines. But still, why do some doctors give up on patients who have trouble controlling their weight, especially if they happen to be women? Since doctors are human, they are subject to the same biases many of us share. And with almost half of medical patients in the U.S. being noncompliant with medical advice, doctors are understandably frustrated. Why this gets taken out on women, however, remains curious. We can look at our fascination with women in the popular media as a guide. Dramatic weight loss post-pregnancy is a major source of hits on websites that profile the famous. And let’s face it, we expect our women role models to be thin, despite how busy they might be trying to raise a family or deal with post-partum hormones and mood. Maybe if things were more balanced on the gender scale for us in society, then doctors would follow. Although medical clinicians are an easy target of our derision, holding them to a higher standard is not working, at least for overweight women who need care. While doctors certainly need to come to terms with their biases, the rest of us need to come to terms with our own. We should stop holding women to higher standards in terms of weight and beauty. Let’s talk about how healthcare guidelines are useful, but more realistic for people who have the time and money to follow them. Read more: Women , Aging , Physicians , Nutrition Guidelines , Obesity , Diet , Healthcare , Women's Health , Doctors , Health Care , Living News
Full Story
Recent Comments