How much $$ is a life worth ? by rue

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In the story, the CDC says it's investigating. They're probably going to look at were protocols followed and are the protocols sufficient.

But these extra-sensitive tests could be run on all donated tissues. Why are they not ? Because it saves a few extra dollars for which there is no (insurance or Medicare) reimbursement. So it doesn't matter how expensive the surgery may be if it's reimbursed, or how cheap the test is if it's not reimbursed. One gets done and the other doesn't, and for want of a nail ...

BTW, there is lax enforcement of existing laws and the laws themselves are a patchwork. So patients can't sell tissues, but hospitals, funeral homes and for-profit tissue banks can charge 'processing fees' well into the thousands and tens of thousands per item. Check into the stripping of the parts of Allistair Cooke for example.

Such is the outcome of trying to force two incompatible systems together - the profit-making one and the life-caring one. More profit, or more treatment. One must necessarily come at the 'expense' of the other.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:12 AM

That's a bit nuts, yeah.

A lotta folk I know, refuse to be listed as donors because they honestly feel that if they are, little or no effort will be made to save them if they are critically injured.

Given the nature and pattern of our so-called healthcare system, and in long personal tragic experience with it - I cannot say I wholly disagree with that possibility, you know ?

My beliefs attach no spiritual significance to the shell left behind when the light of life has moved on, so other than the above reasons, I fail to see the point of not putting the parts to good use, yanno ?

Oh, speakin of HIV too... might wanna look into Mercks latest friggin disaster, before they fudge the data, buy off the FDA and try marketing it here as "safe and effective".

We might not agree on some things about the healthcare industry, but I tellya, I think we really need to put the screws to the FDA, CDC and related supervisory orgs or start demanding our money back - much as it pains me to admit it, a socialised medicine framework seems the only solution, and I certainly wouldn't mind my tax dollars funding the education of doctors in return for public service, nearly as much as I mind them funding the already bloated military-industrial complex.

Said concept and framework, I would suggest enlisting an independant body of medical professionals to put together.. like anything run by the Gov, it's implementation is likely to be halfassed, but at least get a decent start on it by not letting them come up with a plan that won't work from the get-go.

Sorry for the ramble, but I am watching a close family member die by degrees over this shit, from the same system that actively tried to kill my ass by denying care since I was "gonna die anyway"..

Bastards

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 5:25 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Four transplant recipients in Chicago have contracted H.I.V. from an organ donor, the first known cases of the virus being spread by organ transplants in 22 years, The Chicago Tribune is reporting today. The patients also contracted the hepatitis C virus.

The health care system has been about making profit from day one. Why then has this not been an issue before? Is this a simple mistake as mentioned above or the start of something more nefarious as Rue states?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Why then has this not been an issue before?"

It was an issue and has been for decades. And not just with transplants but also with blood (which is a type of transplant). That's why 'they' instituted the antibody tests in the first place. But even back then, 'they' knew there was a chance of HIV, nonA-nonB hepatitis, CJD, HTLVI and II et al, syphilis, CMV and other diseases being spread. And chose to let the industry run virtually unregulated anyhway. That's why there was a big spike in what they figured was CJD (like mad-cow, only probably the human form) being spread through dura mater transplants (used for anyone who has brain surgery) and also through HGH (extracted from human pituitaries), HSV through corneal transplants, West Nile through blood, HIV through factor 8, cancer through bone grafts etc.

This particular instance is just the latest in a long, shameful string of diseases spread through commercial body parts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:29 AM

CHRISISALL

This is God's way of tellin' us not to try and, er...play 'God'....

I've heard it said Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Of all the times to use special test that costs a little more, a high-risk donor might be one of them. As long as you're going to do an expensive transplant anyway, why not kick in a couple extra bucks for the test ?

Thats why God invented punitve damages. I'd love to be the atty here.

As for the question 'how much is life worth'? The legal answer is its worth precisely what a Jury awards as limited by laws regarding damage caps and the Judge's discretion.

For straight damages there's a complicated formula that takes into account age, income, lifestyle, cost of treatment, etc. Oddly, it'll likely come out to be $3 million.

Defending this case I would argue that the transplants saved their lives so there are no damages here.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I say money, you think damages. How reflexive. What about felonies ? People have been successfully prosecuted for spreading AIDS.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:50 AM

HIXIE129

I think that in the U.S. a life is worth about
$166,667.60 I thought I read somewhere that the U.S. had 50 trillion in assets and there are 300 million people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Minus debt

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Nov 2007 at 05:57:30 PM GMT is: USD 9,118,802,043,668.56

The estimated population of the United States is 303,532,014 so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,042.31.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I say money, you think damages. How reflexive. What about felonies ? People have been successfully prosecuted for spreading AIDS.

You want to dig up the doner?

And the people must knowingly spread the virus with the intent to infect. Even reckless disregard takes some proving...the mere allegation is not enough to warrant prosecution.

As for money v. damages, since there is no other remedy, money is the ONLY way to address damages.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not the donor, the provider. Criminally negligent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not the donor, the provider. Criminally negligent.

Malpractice is rarely criminal. I think you'd need a deliberate and knowing act. Like if a Doctor operates while voluntarily intoxicated. If its just bad record keeping or simple human error...its a stretch to prosecute anyone.

But its as good a civil case as a lawyer will ever find (for both sides), because one can argue 'they killed my client' the other can argue 'we saved your client'.

It'd be a great case. Watch for it next season on Boston Legal.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:17 PM

"Malpractice is rarely criminal. I think you'd need a deliberate and knowing act."

You wanna talk about a lawsuit gonna happen, Hero ?

Check out the showdown in Prince Georges county MD between parents and school officials, now with the courts involved.

This one's over, what else, a pair of vaccinations, one of which is prettymuch useless (chicken pox) although not seemingly dangerous, with minimal VAERS listings.

And the other is a bit of a horror tho, the Hep B vaccine, which is up to 100 times more dangerous to a kid as the risk of Hep B comparing actual incidence of the disorder versus just the reported VAERS data - on top of the fact that almost without a doubt many of those doses contain thimerosal because compliance with it's intended removal has been abysmal and enforcement has become a joke.

I cite the testimony of Dr' Jane Orient, M.D. to several congressional subcommitties back in june of 99 about how damn dangerous it is.
(Clarity Edit: How dangerous the Hep B vacc is, Thimerosal being a seperate issue addressed by Blayloch, I think..)

And you can bet your booty that by now that information is in the hands of some of those PG county parents...

If even just ONE of those kids gets ill or dies from a vacc issued under threat of force, violence and imprisonment, you can imagine the shitstorm that'll follow, and word has been given that if anything of that sort happens, whatever doc broke his code of ethics to issue those injections is gonna be slapped with criminal negligence if not worse - I would say forcing a potentially toxic medicine onto a child in defiance of the parent and childs wishes, to defend against a statistically negligable threat, damn well qualifies as malpractice if anything does.

Someone needs to put a leash on this shit, particularly Merck, and GSK is almost as bad.

Any ideas on how to get the FDA and CDC to actually do what we pay them such ungodly sums of money for, instead of bending over for the corporations... anyone ?

Cause I'm fresh out, and pissed as hell given that it's kinda fuckin personal at this time... what with my sister getting the HMO "Please die and save us the money" treatment and knowing some of the folk in PG county on top of it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

How to reply ......

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/health/14vaccine.html?ref=us

Sharp Drop Seen in Deaths From Ills Fought by Vaccine

Death rates for 13 diseases that can be prevented by childhood vaccinations are at all-time lows in the United States.

The study by the CDC is the first time that the agency has searched historical records going back to 1900 to compile estimates of cases, hospitalizations and deaths for all the diseases children are routinely vaccinated against.

In nine of the diseases, rates of death or hospitalization declined more than 90 percent since vaccines against them were approved, and in the cases of smallpox, diphtheria and polio, by 100 percent.

In only four diseases — hepatitis A and B, invasive pneumococcal diseases and varicella — did deaths and hospitalizations fall less than 90 percent. Those vaccines are all relatively new — Also, some diseases like hepatitis typically strike adults, who are less likely to be immunized.

The results “are a testament to the fact that vaccines can drive diseases down to near nil,” said Dr. Gregory A. Poland, chief of the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic.

... as fewer parents see children killed, scarred or brain-damaged by diseases that were once common, “there’s been a shift in who’s not getting vaccinated,” said Dr. Paul A. Offit.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

I think vaccines - even mandatory ones - CAN be a good thing. Even as bad as some of them are, the results show that they do save lives. But I DON'T think they have them all as good as they need to be.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:10 PM

Yah, that's where we're in agreement - I don't think some of these things meet the standards of safety and efficiency they *need* to have if your gonna go around mandating them with threats of violence and incarceration.

Even for something in theory helpful, that whole concept of medical treatment at the point of a gun just bothers me, it bothers me one holy hell of a lot - cause I know just how badly that can go.

I am not opposed to the idea of vaccination in and of itself, it's just that the recent conduct of Merck in particular, and the FDA/CDC being either negligently lax or in collusion has made me very damned suspicious...

We CAN do better than this, we NEED to do better than this, you know ?

This being more your field than mine, I'm opening the door here for some conceptual ideas, Rue.

Might not agree with you obviously, but being that my only scientific background whatsoever related is all based on neurological impact of tramua during developmental stages, it's not exactly helpful from a general medical aspect, you understand...

So I am askin if you have any ideas on how to go about it from a larger scale, and ensure a certain standard of effective and safe care on a national level, cause this.. what we got, is just a mess, and as it gets worse the lack of trust, the broken bond between patient and doctor, is only gonna get worse.

It's not about one issue, it's about the whole thing.

Any ideas ?

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So I am askin if you have any ideas on how to go about it from a larger scale, and ensure a certain standard of effective and safe care on a national level, cause this.. what we got, is just a mess, and as it gets worse the lack of trust, the broken bond between patient and doctor, is only gonna get worse.

It's not about one issue, it's about the whole thing.

Any ideas ?

Two solutions I can think of...bet you can figure out which one I like better:

1. Regulation. More laws, rules beauracracy. Etc.

2. Litigation. Makes lawyers rich...but also made cars much safer, put warnings on everything, got rid of lead paint (in America) and asbestos (however its spelled. Lawyers and courts (and generous juries) have done more to make products safer then any other system. So what does this need to work. No tort reform, limiting Jury awards is a license to settle cases rather then litigate them in the public eye. More Judges and a streamlined process, to cut down on delays. Also the Congress could help get access to Federal Courts (and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's discovery rules) by lowering Jurisdictional limits like damage amounts or making it easier to certify classes for class action suits.

Think about that when your wondering why your not driving a Pinto home from work tonight.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hixie129:
I think that in the U.S. a life is worth about
$166,667.60 I thought I read somewhere that the U.S. had 50 trillion in assets and there are 300 million people.

That depends on how you look at it, because I heard its worth $450-$800 in the first trimester. Although it could get upwards of several thousand in the later trimesters.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That depends on how you look at it, because I heard its worth $450-$800 in the first trimester. Although it could get upwards of several thousand in the later trimesters."

Interesting post, Finn, but basically flawed. The price is for a medical treatment, not the fetus itself. Perhaps you could put a fetus up for sale on EBay and see what it goes for. Though you might have to specifiy sex and 'race' to get the best price.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Frem

I am in complete disgust over the current merging of corporate interests and government function. And while Hero seems to think litigation is the way to go, it only seems to work under a very specific circumstance - when there is a government agency involved. Because one of the biggest effects of judgments is not public perception and the aggregate power of the individual purse, but the force those judgments apply on regulations and regulatory agencies.

I would like to reply more fully later, this post is a promissory note.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:06 AM

HIXIE129

Finn Mac

I was thinking of an adult and my number was based on (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

Obviously the 'system' is off the rails.

But I think it used to work in an earlier time. That might be one of the first things we can discuss - do you think it ever worked, or not ?

In the large sense, I think we do need a national government system for more than national military defense. And also state government systems and local government systems. If you want property laws you need police - you can't stay awake 24 hours to guard your stuff. If you have police you need a justice system - otherwise all you have are armed thugs on either side threatening each other 24/ 7. If you want an economy you need a currency - otherwise trade with other countries or outside of your direct locale becomes impossible. If you don't want anyone shitting in your yard - or his business otherwise polluting your land, water and air - you need a system to address the problem.

You might think that property issues can be worked out - you, the other dude, and each with a gun. That sounds like the old west, and the towns run that way were hell-holes. The fastest gun ruled --- everyone. There were very few fast guns that didn't abuse their power. Or you might think you can settle it with you, your neighbors, and the other dude - each with a gun. But what if the other dude has lots of goods to trade for LOTS of people with LOTS of guns ? A lot of old west towns were run that way - the richest man ran --- everyone. They were hell-holes as well. And you lose - again. You are powerless to protect yourself, your family and your stuff in front of the more powerful.

Then what can be said locally goes up the chain. Neighborhood to neighborhood. The large rich powerful one abuses the smaller poorer less powerful ones. And on up to county to county, state to state, region to region.

So, at the very first level, I think one needs a government.

What do you think ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:57 PM

I just don't think government is any different than the pack of assholes with lots of guns, the only question is percieved legitimacy, as the end conduct winds up prettymuch the same in either case.

This'll throw you for a loop tho, especially having no doubt heard it from me in another context.

See, government is a tool, it can be used or misused, and the more powerful a tool is the more dangerous it's misuse can be.

That's why we had a set of rules to restrain it, keep it on a leash, the Constitution - and IF we were to give this kind of power to them officially, instead of the halfass, badly implemented usurpations we do have...

We'd have to be iron-clad specific in what to allow, disallow, and refer to arbitration or committee - and then propose it properly as an Amendment, rather than letting things slide by violating the process, cause one leads to another to another and you wind up with some dork who thinks he's a king cause he can write executive orders.

It'd be a damned long Amendment, but to first create the office, and issue the powers which it would need in order to function at that scale on a national level would *require* it to be done that way, otherwise we'll wind up with something worse than what we got now.

Just cause imma Anarchist doesn't mean I am unwilling to tolerate the fact that most other folk want or seem to percieve a need for a government... and sure, like any tool it can be used to make life more convenient, problem is when you wind up trying to use a tool for the wrong purpose and it leads to damage or self injury, if you take my meaning.

If yer gonna do it, do it right, get it within Constitutional Compliance to begin with, and try to reduce the initial scourge of judicial re-interpretation by that much, cause you *know* big pharma is gonna try that one right off.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hixie129:
Finn Mac

I was thinking of an adult and my number was based on (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization)

Yeah, I know. But there are lots of ways to look at it. Though the cost of abortion gives as good a number as any for the value of a human life which society seems to register.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Uhhh, that means a human tooth is worth about as much as a fetus. An appendix, much more. A breast and associated cancer and lymph nodes a factor of 50x more valuable.

As I mentioned earlier, your equation is faulty.

In reality you're paying for the work, not a piece of tissue, whatever it might be. And in this case the tissue - a fetus, a tooth, an appendix, a cancerous breast and lymph nodes - isn't being bought by anyone. So assuming a value for that tissue is erroneous.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:08 PM

Yes, rue, we all know you're desperate to avoid this comparison.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If I had the carpeting removed from my house for $1000 would you say the value of the carpeting was $1000 ? Or would you say the value of the work was $ 1000?

Would it make a difference if the carpeting was a worn and dirty wall to wall shag from the 70 's ? What if it was heirloom oriental rugs ? Because here the value of the carpeting clearly has nothing to do with the cost of the removal.

Not desperate, just logical. Which, if we are throwing slurs around, makes you illogical.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not desperate, just logical. Which, if we are throwing slurs around, makes you illogical.

Yet, somehow you found the comparison of a human life with the average value that person contributes to the economy acceptable. Which strangely enough is same thing as your carpet argument that you now claim to be flawed. Evidently, you’re logic fails consistency checks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:34 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yet, somehow you found the comparison of a human life with the average value that person contributes to the economy acceptable."

Not really. I posted to point out a flaw in the calculation.

As to other posts - insurance valuation and the like, I have no experience with that and so offer no comment.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2007 3:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I just don't think government is any different than the pack of assholes with lots of guns, the only question is perceived legitimacy, as the end conduct winds up pretty much the same in either case."

It's an interesting observation and pretty much true - with some caveats. Democracy tries to ameliorate the 'problem' of having government at all by governing only with the consent of the governed. But it's true that there are fundamental problems even with democracy. The majority could become a tyranny over the minority. Hopefully this can be avoided by making sure the majority and minority have the exact same set of rights. The concentration of power in the hands of a few could lead to abuses - like we see today - because a few people in power can act more quickly and with more focus than a large number of citizens can react. It depends on the free flow of information, which has also become problematic. And it takes a willing citizenry who have the time for core governance.

So anyway, that's just my take on why government at all, and why it CAN be more good than bad.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

I do have to get going, so I hope to see you on the other side.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 1:47 AM

Alas, consent of the governed went out the window circa April 1861.

Unlike other tools, Government has a will, or at least a nature, of it's own, inevitably self-corrupting if not viciously checked every time it steps over the line, and no person or collective of such can be eternally vigilant 100% of the time, especially in a tanked economy busting 50+ hours a week to make ends meet, we've gone back to the same scratching desperately to survive that civilization and govenment was supposed to save us from.

I liken it to The One Ring, sure it's powerful, but it's also very dangerous even in the best of hands - best placed on those with no ambition or desire for control over others, unfortunately the very people it attracts.

That is neither here nor there, however, as we're stuck with what is, rather than what should be, and as such must find some way to make it work for us, or at least work around it's tendancy to munge things up.

And that brings us back to the topic at hand, how to get something like that done without a total disaster from the very start, and I stated how to do it, in my opinion above...

What I don't know, where I have no clue, is what exactly TO do, I simply lack the medical knowledge to offer any intelligent comment on it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:06 AM

"because a few people in power can act more quickly and with more focus than a large number of citizens can react."

One reason our Founders wanted to centralize and focus the things they did not give the FedGov the power to do, at the state or local level - addressed by the people they were most directly affecting, decided by them, and as you say, smaller collectives act faster with with a tighter focus.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:17 AM

HIXIE129

In the U.S. we have always dealt in selling body parts.. I too am also guilty of participating in this strange marketplace. I remember when I was young; I would place a tooth under my pillow for the good fairy… to exchange for money. I hear that the market for teeth is still lucrative today

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 6:14 AM

CITIZEN

I don't know, how much is a barrel of crude worth these days?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:45 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

A $1.00 syringe ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/nyregion/16doctor.html?_r=1&oref=slo
gin

Patients Were Not Told of Misuse of Syringes

By PAUL VITELLO and SARAH KERSHAW

State health officials notified 628 patients this week that they should be tested for hepatitis and H.I.V. infection because they were treated years ago by an anesthesiologist in Nassau County who used improper procedures for preventing the spread of blood-borne diseases.

The anesthesiologist, Dr. Harvey Finkelstein, first became the focus of a state health investigation in 2005 after two of his patients contracted hepatitis C.

In 2005, investigators found that, in violation of widely accepted practices recommended by the C.D.C., Dr. Finkelstein was reusing syringes when drawing doses of medicine from vials that hold more than one dose. He would use a new syringe for each patient. But when giving one patient more than one type of drug by injection, his practice of using the same syringe to draw medicine from more than one vial led to the potential contamination of the vials.

For reasons that were unclear yesterday, his case was not referred to the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct of the State Education Department until nine months after his unsafe practices were known.

That agency, charged with taking disciplinary actions against doctors, found no evidence of wrongdoing, and recommended no disciplinary action.

Joanne Doroshow, director of the New York-based Center for Justice and Democracy and a member of a state task force on medical malpractice, said the case illustrated “a too-cozy relationship between the medical profession and the people who supposedly regulate them.”

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 7:55 AM