is there any question of intent?

[Tanya Marquette]

Dear All,

Was sent this link to an opinion column in the NYTimes. A simple checklist for cleanliness in hospital medical procedures

was being tested out in Michigan hospitals. The success in reducing infections, and possibly deaths, was remarkable. The

effort was to be installed in New Jersey and Rhode Island hospitals next. The consequence of trying to save lives in without

additional sale of drugs resulted in a shutting down the program. The basis for this decision was to assess this public health

procedure as if it were a new drug being tested without patient consent! Is there any question about the real intent of medical

intervention? Eugenics, genocide, drug profits are the only cateqories that come to my mind!!
This is akin to the FDA declaring that cherries are now to be considered a drug under their control since the growers advertised

that cherries had some healthful functions in the body. This is scarey, folks. Homeopathy attacks are just part of the same

efforts to control all health care and food and put them in the service of large corporations whose purpose and interests are

completely antagonistic to humanistic concerns. I am sorry, I am getting into a rant.
A Lifesaving Checklist By Atul Gawande 30 Dec 2007 A year ago, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published the results of a program that instituted in nearly every intensive care unit in Michigan a simple five-step checklist designed to prevent certain hospital infections... The results were stunning. Within three months, the rate of bloodstream infections from these I.V. lines fell by two-thirds. The average I.C.U. cut its infection rate from 4 percent to zero. Over 18 months, the program saved more than 1,500 lives and nearly $200 million. Yet this past month, the Office for Human Research Protections shut the program down.

If anyone would like to see the whole article, write to me. My computor will not show the URL link for copying.

tanya

[Rosemary Hyde]

This was indeed an incredible article, and the results were nothing short of amazing, in terms of infections avoided. The Michigan hospital where it was tested was an "inner city" hospital with-- prior to using the checklist -- one of the highest infection rates anywhere in the US. With the checklist, infections plummeted to zero, saving hundreds of lives just in that one hospital over one year. Conclusion -- the infections that are so frequent after surgical procedures are totally unnecessary, and the deaths they cause result basically from malpractice -- people not following sanitary precautions that are already known (proven experimentally) to be effective. The whole country should be in an uproar over this, demanding that their hospitals adopt the checklist procedure. At least, talk to your doctors, and tell them you've noted the article and its outcome, and ask what their hospital is doing about it.
Rosemary

[Tanya Marquette]

i know. i read it and reread it. it was so blatant
in its message of malpractice and lack of caring on
one hand, and so sinister on the part of the Office
for Human Research Protections. Who were they protecting---
certainly not the patients. but that is the name of the
game. i don't know why people aren't shrieking about this.
tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

Amazing...
Here's the address of the article (New York Times, December 30, 2007).
Found it by googling ("A Lifesaving Checklist" "Atul Gawande).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/opini ... wande.html

I'm sending a copy to my congressperson, will send it to other
representatives as I can find their addresses. I suggest others do the
same.

Excerpts from the article:
"A year ago, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published the
results of a program that instituted in nearly every intensive care
unit in Michigan a simple five-step checklist designed to prevent
certain hospital infections. It reminds doctors to make sure, for
example, that before putting large intravenous lines into patients,
they actually wash their hands and don a sterile gown and gloves.

The results were stunning. Within three months, the rate of bloodstream
infections from these I.V. lines fell by two-thirds. The average I.C.U.
cut its infection rate from 4 percent to zero. Over 18 months, the
program saved more than 1,500 lives and nearly $200 million.

Yet this past month, the Office for Human Research Protections shut the
program down. The agency issued notice to the researchers and the
Michigan Health and Hospital Association that, by introducing a
checklist and tracking the results without written, informed consent
from each patient and health-care provider, they had violated
scientific ethics regulations. Johns Hopkins had to halt not only the
program in Michigan but also its plans to extend it to hospitals in New
Jersey and Rhode Island. ...

[I've snipped the rest of the truly outrageous article--but go to the
link, and read it! Then raise a stink about it to your senators and
congresspeople!]

Look at that last paragraph: "... by introducing a checklist and
tracking the results without written, informed consent from each
patient and health-care provider, they had violated scientific ethics
regulations." By formalizing *sanitation* procedures they are
violating ethical principals???? I'm reminding myself, this is one
writer's interpretation of what happened. Let's leave open the
possibility that something is missing from this picture. Let's leave
open the possibility there was some *other* reason the program was
stopped, or that the program involved something other than simple a
simple sanitation procedures checklist. But *if* that was in fact the
case, then this seems absolutely criminal, and heads need to roll.
Shannon

[Rosemary Hyde]

Thanks, Shannon. Good idea to send it to congressmen, etc... Rosemary

[Rosemary Hyde]

Thanks for the link, Shannon. I just did write an outraged letter to our
Representative. Rosemary

[Shannon Nelson]

Great-me too! I surely would love to hear follow-up, if anyone learns
more.
Thanks, Rosemary!

[Tanya Marquette]

sending it to congressman is a good idea--also
state legislators as well since there are local
state health laws.
i would also send it to others who are concerned
about health. for example, nurses.
tanya