• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Say it isn't so!! Talking sense about individual responsibility and health care

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Reaction score
936
Points
1,060
The point in the last paragraph is certainly one you don't see often enough in Canada.

Article reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060311/nipple_piercing_060311/20060311?hub=Health

Pierced nipple may have have caused girl's death
Updated Sat. Mar. 11 2006 3:00 PM ET

Canadian Press

A 17-year-old Newfoundland girl is believed to have died from toxic shock syndrome - and the infection that killed her may have resulted from a nipple piercing, the province's chief medical examiner says.

If body piercing did lead to the teen's death, it will underscore warnings from medical experts about the need to ensure such procedures are done by trained, experienced operators with sound infection control practices.

The St. John's teen, whose name has not been released, died Thursday after being admitted to hospital two days earlier "with medical problems that were quite complex," Dr. Simon Avis said Friday in an interview from St. John's.

But Avis said it is too early to say for certain that the apparent toxic shock syndrome arose from an infection at the site of the piercing.

An autopsy was performed, but other tests need to be conducted before the source of the staphylococcus infection can be pinpointed, he said. Results from those tests could take days to weeks.

"We're still in the process of investigating," he said. "We can't be absolutely sure that body piercing had anything to do with the infection."

Still, Avis conceded that of the many possible origins of the toxic shock syndrome, "I think it would be fair to say that we're suspicious that that (body piercing) was the source of the infection, yes."

Toxic shock syndrome is characterized by sudden fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle aches and rash, says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cause is usually toxins produced by strains of Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium commonly found on the skin and on mucous membranes, such as the mouth.

Toxic shock can occur as a complication of skin abscesses or surgery. In females, it has been linked to the use of tampons and intravaginal contraceptive devices.

"This girl came to hospital almost moribund," Avis said of the teen, who was a senior at Booth Memorial High School in St. John's. "All we know is she had a piercing recently. We are now trying to investigate when that was done."

Dr. Margaret Fast, medical officer of health for the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, said anyone thinking of having body piercing or tattooing should first carefully check out the studio and operator.

"Given that it's a very common procedure, I think that the best public health advice to give people is to have it done in a facility that's reputable, that uses proper infection control practices, that has equipment to ensure sterility and that you ensure every step of the procedure is done according to good techniques and good practice," Fast said.

She even advises that would-be recipients of body jewelry look at a piercing parlour's floors to make sure they're clean and that operators aren't wearing grubby clothes.

Winnipeg recently amended its "body modification" bylaw to add piercing after concerns arose about poor infection control by one operator in particular. A teenage client who had jewelry inserted through her nipple ended up hospital and needed treatment for a serious infection at the site.

The bylaw requires all operators to be licensed and they must adhere to rigorous safety measures, said Fast.

Jim Weber, a spokesman for the Association of Professional Piercers, said not all jurisdictions in Canada and the United States have legislation regulating studios, so it's up to the consumer to do their homework first.

While any procedure that "compromises the integrity of the body" poses a danger of subsequent infection, "done properly, the risks from body piercing are minimal," said Weber, operator of Infinite Body Piercing in Philadelphia.

Meanwhile, Avis said his office will be investigating where, when and under what circumstances the St. John's teen had her nipple pierced.

He said her death might be "an extreme example" of what can occur when people have lips, tongues, eyebrows, genitals and other body parts punctured in the name of fashion.

"This is health dollars that are essentially wasted treating infections that shouldn't have occurred because of some desire to have a piece of metal sticking out of your body. It doesn't make much sense to me."
 
Sooooo.....ban all piercing? Even ear piercing? Won't work.
All the best,
Bart
 
The Nanny state response is to ban all piercings.

A common sense response is to delist medical coverage for complications resulting from such activities from public health care, and pass on the cost to tattoo and piercing parlors in the form of liability insurance (with the premium costs going to the customers, natch). You do something stupid, please stop asking ME to pay for it.
 
a_majoor said:
The Nanny state response is to ban all piercings.

A common sense response is to delist medical coverage for complications resulting from such activities from public health care, and pass on the cost to tattoo and piercing parlors in the form of liability insurance (with the premium costs going to the customers, natch). You do something stupid, please stop asking ME to pay for it.
I am in basic agreement with the sentiments. Manufacturers can be held liable for manufacturing defects. Cosmetic surgery is not insured under health care plans [generally] but I do believe medical complications arising from surgery is covered.

Problem is,you have to sue them to recover costs, which would take years.  Anyway, it is a very slippery slope under our model of health care but one that needsto be explored, IMO.

 
 
What about wasted health dollars with regard to unhealthy lifestyles i.e overweight, smoking... I would think alot more tax dollars get wasted dealing with these equally preventable problems...
 
dynaglide said:
What about wasted health dollars with regard to unhealthy lifestyles i.e overweight, smoking... I would think alot more tax dollars get wasted dealing with these equally preventable problems...

I agree with dynaglide.

The costs of rectifying problems like the girl from St. John's has pale in comparison to the costs of those who choose never to exercise, smoke, eat crappy food, and then get a triple bypass and a week in ICU on my tax dollars.

Why not implement a "fat tax" where unhealthy foods would be taxed (there is no way a Big Mac meal with coke should cost less than a healthy alternative), and the money raised used to subsidise healthy alternatives?

Even better would be a fat tax which would see the individual taxed more heavily if their medical professional stated that they were overweight. I think Canadians would start living far healthier lifestyles if they were responsible for something closer to the full costs of sloth.
 
Why not add user fees for health care - if people have to start paying a extra for showing up in an ER without an emergency problem (colds, sore throats,etc), they`ll either start using walk in clinics or doing what should be done for alot of things - let nature take it`s course.  Of course, looking after yourself before that would allow that to happen faster...

On another note, strange that Winnipeg MOH was consulted - this is a place where a GP was firing patients that were smokers.  He basically said he wouldn`t go on treating their smoking related illnesses unless they quit.

MM
 
I believe user fees, with some modifications, would actually go along way to solving our nation-wide health care crisis.

It is an unfortunate fact of our society that if something is 'free', there will be a significant portion of the population that will abuse the privilege. Take Calgary for example. An effective negative unemployment situation, employers begging for workers, 7-11's offering up to $12/hr to start, and yet food banks are still a thriving industry. If it's free, they will come.

On health care, even my family is not exempt. My wife thinks nothing of bringing one of our children to the clinic for even a basic fever. "Well, it's free, and better to be safe than sorry" she states. Egads!

We all think nothing of pumping $50 or more into our cars to fill them. $50 minimum to take a family to the movies. $50 for a dinner at Boston Pizza. $50 or more to renew your driver's licence, ect, ect.

How about $50 to visit your family doctor? Annual family cap at say $1500. Provisions to waive the fee for no income or if the Doctor signs a waiver stating extraordinary circumstances.

The benefits would be immediate:

There would be an immediate reduction on use of  the system for frivolous matters.

This would help to financially sustain an unsustainable system.   

There would be an incentive to maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

For regions of the country where this matters, there would be job creation to sustain this new bureaucracy.

Most importantly, personal responsibility would again be introduced into a system that, from all accounts, is quite broken.

The paranoia we have in this country about health care confounds me. I believe, however, it is fuelled by the media and special interest groups. Maybe one day....... 
 
medicineman said:
Why not add user fees for health care - if people have to start paying a extra for showing up in an ER without an emergency problem (colds, sore throats,etc), they`ll either start using walk in clinics or doing what should be done for alot of things - let nature take it`s course.  Of course, looking after yourself before that would allow that to happen faster...

This is exactly what we need!!!

 
The main problem with a public insurance plan is the temptation to meddle with people's lifestyles.

Having voluntarily undertaken to adopt the liability of providing most health care at public expense, it is unacceptable for us to then use that liability as an excuse to regulate people's poor health choices UNLESS we are willing to fully liberate the market to private insurers and providers for people who elect to make poor health choices and deal with the consequences themselves.
 
"Public expense", "publicly funded", etc imply that it's free.  Over our lives my wife and I will have paid almost $1 million to this socialist system.  Our facist/socialist state can take my house, my car, my kids if I don't pony up $25,000 every year. 

Trudeau said that the state doesn't belong in the bedrooms of the country, but it has sure as heck moved in everywhere else.
 
Brad Sallows said:
The main problem with a public insurance plan is the temptation to meddle with people's lifestyles.

I am already taxed at 32%, made to wear my seatbelt, forbidden from speaking my mind if it offends someone else and dictated to about what I can and cannot do with my body. How much more meddlesome can they be?! We might as well go all the way.

If I have to pay for the chubbies to get healthy, by gum, they should have to pay more!
 
I am already taxed at 32%, made to wear my seatbelt, forbidden from speaking my mind if it offends someone else and dictated to about what I can and cannot do with my body. How much more meddlesome can they be?! We might as well go all the way.

If I have to pay for the chubbies to get healthy, by gum, they should have to pay more!

Well if you decide not to wear your seatbelt and are in an accident I feel we as taxpayers should not have to pay for your life saving surgery that wouldn't have been necessary if you buckled up.  Though really, a fat tax would be a good idea...

User fees won't solve anything, people will still go or rather those who can afford will still go.  Those who can't may think twice about bringing their kid to the doctor even though they need it for fear they'll have to pay a price. 

What we really need are more family practictioners, sadly the problem with that is most medical students don't want to go into family practice for various reasons. 

Our problems with health care won't be solved by one magical thing, nor is the solution making health care more inaccessable.




 
Sheerin said:
User fees won't solve anything, people will still go or rather those who can afford will still go.  Those who can't may think twice about bringing their kid to the doctor even though they need it for fear they'll have to pay a price. 

What we really need are more family practictioners, sadly the problem with that is most medical students don't want to go into family practice for various reasons. 

Two thoughts here.

1. More family doctors, while a wonderful goal, will not help the fact that heath care costs are rising far faster than inflation. Health care costs are forecast to consume 100% of provincial budgets within 20 years unless drastic changes are made to reduce growth.

2. Anyone who would choose to spend money on cigarettes, booze, drugs or other non essential items over their personal health is an example of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.
 
"I feel we as taxpayers should not have to pay for your life saving surgery that wouldn't have been necessary if you buckled up."

Let's modify that slightly:

"I feel we as taxpayers should not have to pay for your life saving [treatments] that wouldn't have been necessary if you [didn't screw around]".

Now you go out and sell that to the sexually active communities who demand the state remain out of their bedrooms, but also demand the state cough up the cash to insulate them from the consequences of their behaviour by paying to deal with the various health complications.  Oh, wait.  You mean they want a morning-after pill, abortion, a handful of pills for the clap, an expensive drug cocktail for AIDS, etc, etc to be publicly funded to bail them out of their bad judgement?

If we're not going to pay for self-inflicted conditions, let's start by making a complete list first, shall we?
 
"I feel we as taxpayers should not have to pay for your life saving [treatments] that wouldn't have been necessary if you [didn't screw around]".

Now you go out and sell that to the sexually active communities who demand the state remain out of their bedrooms, but also demand the state cough up the cash to insulate them from the consequences of their behaviour by paying to deal with the various health complications.  Oh, wait.  You mean they want a morning-after pill, abortion, a handful of pills for the clap, an expensive drug cocktail for AIDS, etc, etc to be publicly funded to bail them out of their bad judgement?

actually that comment was more towards GO!!! bitching about seatbelt laws.  I, in no way  believe we should with hold treatment from ANYONE for ANY REASON.  For the very reason you illustrate there, if we do it for one thing someone will demand that we'll do it for another.  I know its an extreme possibility but if we head down that road we may one day refuse treatment becuase of faulty genes.

I'm also noting suggesting that more family doctors is the only solution, its just one facet of it, antoher is making the world healthier by getting people more active.  I personally think the best way to do this is make sure kids don't eat crap at school (and idealy at home) and have them spend more time in the gym/outside/whatever than they currently do. 
Its all about primary health care. 
 
Sheerin said:
I personally think the best way to do this is make sure kids don't eat crap at school (and idealy at home) and have them spend more time in the gym/outside/whatever than they currently do. 
Its all about primary health care. 

Then perhaps we should think about having some money redirected from ACTUAL health care to PREVENTATIVE health care - have mandatory phys ed in the schools for an hour a day, as well as health education, all that stuff we used to have in school that we don't anymore.  Of course, at the expense of getting flamed, I suppose that might in fact require school days to be lengthened a bit...

MM
 
Family practice is too much work for too little pay.  The simple facts are that the health care we want is more than we're willing to pay unless we're spending on ourselves.  As long as the people effectively controlling the status quo of Canadian health care won't allow a person to spend an additional dollar unless it goes into the collective pool, we're going to have a deadlock - no more money, and decreasing coverages as expenses and demand mount.
 
I believe that if the state covers the consequences, then the state gets to make the rules (seatbelts etc.) BUT there should be a way to "opt out" of it if you choose to color outside the box.

Joe A

Pays his taxes, eats healthy, exercises, drives responsibly, never smokes drinks or gambles, and saves for his retirement. He gets in a car accident at 50 and Medicare pays the tab.

Sam B

Never filed a tax return in his life, never passed a fast food joint he did'nt like, weighs 350lbs, drives his uninsured car like a maniac (usually while drunk) and gets in an accident. Medicare pays the tab.

Why should people who fail to take care of themselves be taken care of on my dime?

Why not kick a few million people off medicare?

For example;

No tax return, no free ride, no exceptions. Only allow the productive members of society to take advantage of what is rightly theirs, everyone else can take a hike.
 
A bit harsh there GO!!!!, my son is five years old and hasn't filed a tax return yet, is he getting cut off in your Republic?  :eek:

In principle, market mechanisms can solve a lot of the lower end problems of the health system, attracting more doctors and nurses to the system; promoting preventative medicine and encouraging people to move away from self destructive behaviours.

For more serious medical problems, such as chronic illness, catastrophic trauma and so on, there should still be a system of coverage to prevent victims from going bankrupt, a combination of insurance and health savings accounts (similar in principle to RRSPs). What has happened is we have decided that EVERYTHING is a catastrophe, hence all health issues must be covered by government health care. Just like in the military we know that "he who attempts to defend everything, defends nothing"; so in healthcare "he who attempts to cure everything; cures nothing".
 
Back
Top