Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 03 2018, @09:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the think-of-the-children's...-mother dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The US has a shameful record when it comes to caring for its moms. As Ars has reported before, the rate of women dying during pregnancy or childbirth is higher—much higher—than in any other developed country. By some estimates, mothers die in the US at a rate six-times that seen in Italy and three-times the rate in the UK, for instance. And of those that survive, tens of thousands suffer devastating injuries and near-death experiences each year.

Nevertheless, health researchers, hospital organizations, policy makers, and state task forces have been working to understand and reverse the horrific numbers—often doing so with limited resources and reliance on volunteers. While reports have offered glimpses of the problem, a new investigation by USA Today provides one of the sharpest pictures yet.

Many of the pregnant women and mothers who suffer and die in this country do so from easily preventable, common complications—and hospitals know exactly what safety features and practices are needed to spare mothers' lives and suffering, they just aren't using them. Women are left to bleed to death because doctors don't bother monitoring blood loss. Women suffer strokes and seizures and even die because doctors and nurses fail to treat their high blood pressure in time. The bottom line is stunning, simple negligence.

[...] While high blood pressure is one of the top causes of maternal deaths and complications, experts estimate that up to 60 percent of hypertensive deaths are preventable.

Hemorrhaging is another common but easily treatable complication. Women can bleed to death in as little as five minutes during childbirth. Yet experts estimate that 90 percent of maternal deaths from extreme blood loss are preventable. Such strategies to avoid harms are simple things, like weighing bloody pads to monitor blood loss (not relying on inaccurate visual estimates), having medications and supplies to curb blood loss readily available in a mobile cart, and responding promptly to signs of trouble.

Such simple steps have been recommended by experts for years. But in interviews with USA Today, many hospitals admitted they weren't following guidelines.

To put the data in real terms, USA Todaytold the story of 24-year-old Ali Lowry, who bled internally for hours after delivering by Cesarean section in an Ohio hospital in 2013. Her blood pressure registered at alarmingly low levels—52/26, 57/25, 56/24, 59/27—for more than three hours before staff responded. By the time she was airlifted to another hospital for life-saving surgery, her heart had stopped and she needed a hysterectomy. She eventually settled a lawsuit with her doctor and the hospital, which denied wrongdoing.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @05:16PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2018, @05:16PM (#716806)

    So we're still back to square one with many people unable to afford insurance, but if they can't then one health crisis and they are ruined.

    Great system! The best! The only metric we care about is doing gangbusters! Oh what metric? People not getting a free lunch! Hands outta my pocket bitch, die in the gutter you worthless moneyless scum!

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 04 2018, @01:23AM (6 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 04 2018, @01:23AM (#717055) Homepage Journal

    What part of get the treatment and then pay it out says no healthcare to you? Wait, did you want someone else to pay for what you receive? Okay, I get you now.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:56AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @02:56AM (#717090)

      With health insurance you are paying for what you aren't getting. You're paying for the armies of MBAs to skim off most of your payments to line their pockets and build up a useless paperwork empire. You're paying for the armies of MBAs that get in the way of the nurses and doctors by understaffing the crews. You're paying for armies of MBAs to block and even override the decisions experienced doctors regarding treating patients. You're paying for armies of MBAs that collude with insurance companies to rip you the fuck off [propublica.org]. Notice a common thread in that?

      You of all people should be a big fan of single-payer.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 04 2018, @04:01AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 04 2018, @04:01AM (#717109) Homepage Journal

        You've got yourself a fallacy going there. It is not a binary choice. There are as many options as you can think up.

        You of all people should be a big fan of single-payer.

        What gives you that idea? If it's compulsory it's no way in hell ever going to get my backing. I'm about individual liberty. If it's not compulsory, it's not single-payer because generally healthy folks are going to opt out rather than pay for something they're not going to be using.

        All that aside, I fundamentally dislike insurance of any kind. Given the choice, I prefer the route of personal responsibility for myself. What you do is your business but I strongly dislike the ideas of others paying my way or of wasting money.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @04:13AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @04:13AM (#717113)

          Because single payer is more efficient and has better health outcomes for the entire country. If you are against it then you are an idiot. It is that simple, and for someone qho cries "taxation is theft" it seems like you would especially appreciate more efficient usage if your tax dollars.

          I know what you'll argue, "that requires more money taken out of my pockets by the barrel of a gun!!!" but that is stupidly short sighted.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @04:20AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04 2018, @04:20AM (#717118)

        That's not the system he proposed.

        However, the system he does propose constitutes slavery. If you get sick, you become enslaved to paying back the capitalists (with interest, compounded) if you want to get well again. Or you could just die. Your choice.