Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Eclampsia on "Call the Midwife"
935 views
Skip to first unread message
Opus the Penguin
Oct 28, 2012, 7:04:48 PM10/28/12
to
[Warning just in case: Potential spoiler material begins in second
paragraph.]
We just watched an episode of "Call the Midwife", which is set in
London in the early 1950s. It's based on the nonfiction memoir of the
same name, but I can't testify to how accurate the book is or how
faithful the series is to the book. (I wonder if people back then
really mentioned how awesome it is to have a National Health Service
as often as the show seems to. Maybe since it was fairly new and a
huge improvement over the previous situation, they actually did. It
kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs where the
actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of the script,
while still in character. Also, it seems kind of tacky to keep
bringing this up in front of us poor Americans. They could've sent us
an edited version, but whatever.)
Anyway, in this episode, one of the mothers dies of eclampsia. The
baby--27 weeks along--was lost as well. And the way it was presented,
once they knew it was eclampsia, they knew the mother was going to
die, but didn't know how soon. It's hard to judge the time frame on
this show, but she appeared to hang on for a day, never regaining
consciousness.
Is that plausible? What's happening biologically during that time? Is
it an organ failure kind of thing? Caused by what? Could they really
be *sure* she wasn't going to wake up and start improving?
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
paragraph.]
We just watched an episode of "Call the Midwife", which is set in
London in the early 1950s. It's based on the nonfiction memoir of the
same name, but I can't testify to how accurate the book is or how
faithful the series is to the book. (I wonder if people back then
really mentioned how awesome it is to have a National Health Service
as often as the show seems to. Maybe since it was fairly new and a
huge improvement over the previous situation, they actually did. It
kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs where the
actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of the script,
while still in character. Also, it seems kind of tacky to keep
bringing this up in front of us poor Americans. They could've sent us
an edited version, but whatever.)
Anyway, in this episode, one of the mothers dies of eclampsia. The
baby--27 weeks along--was lost as well. And the way it was presented,
once they knew it was eclampsia, they knew the mother was going to
die, but didn't know how soon. It's hard to judge the time frame on
this show, but she appeared to hang on for a day, never regaining
consciousness.
Is that plausible? What's happening biologically during that time? Is
it an organ failure kind of thing? Caused by what? Could they really
be *sure* she wasn't going to wake up and start improving?
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Howard Hola Hale
Oct 28, 2012, 7:52:28 PM10/28/12
to
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote
> [Warning just in case: Potential spoiler material begins in second
> paragraph.]
More coming in mine too, I guess.
> Anyway, in this episode, one of the mothers dies of eclampsia. The
> baby--27 weeks along--was lost as well. And the way it was presented,
> once they knew it was eclampsia, they knew the mother was going to
> die, but didn't know how soon. It's hard to judge the time frame on
> this show, but she appeared to hang on for a day, never regaining
> consciousness.
>
> Is that plausible? What's happening biologically during that time? Is
> it an organ failure kind of thing? Caused by what? Could they really
> be *sure* she wasn't going to wake up and start improving?
I don't know, but it was either eclampsia or preeclampsia that was the
cause of death in that devastatingly awesome ER I saw on one of those
totally out of sequence rerun marathons on basic cable. That episode
has made me eternally grateful I'll never be a pregnant woman, or an ER
resident for that matter. Anyway, if it was horribly dangerous in a
fictional Chicago hospital in the 80s or 90s, then it seems likely it
was even worse in a fictional London in the 50s.
> [Warning just in case: Potential spoiler material begins in second
> paragraph.]
> Anyway, in this episode, one of the mothers dies of eclampsia. The
> baby--27 weeks along--was lost as well. And the way it was presented,
> once they knew it was eclampsia, they knew the mother was going to
> die, but didn't know how soon. It's hard to judge the time frame on
> this show, but she appeared to hang on for a day, never regaining
> consciousness.
>
> Is that plausible? What's happening biologically during that time? Is
> it an organ failure kind of thing? Caused by what? Could they really
> be *sure* she wasn't going to wake up and start improving?
cause of death in that devastatingly awesome ER I saw on one of those
totally out of sequence rerun marathons on basic cable. That episode
has made me eternally grateful I'll never be a pregnant woman, or an ER
resident for that matter. Anyway, if it was horribly dangerous in a
fictional Chicago hospital in the 80s or 90s, then it seems likely it
was even worse in a fictional London in the 50s.
N Jill Marsh
Oct 28, 2012, 8:20:28 PM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:04:48 +0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
I won't snip any of this due to the spoiler warning.
It's plausible, although I doubt very much it was an automatic death
sentence. However, at the point you're describing, the woman has had
the convulsions, been deprived of oxygen, and is in a coma, so she's
going to die in all likelihood - indeed, I think there's a pretty high
risk of that happening now if she has got to those stages.
It (and pre-eclampsia) is a pretty strange condition, but all you
really need to know about it is that it doesn't stop until the
placenta is removed, and that the ultimate result of a complicated
cascade of processes is that the fetus ends up without enough blood to
thrive, and the woman ends up with blood clots, multiple organ failure
(kidney, lung and liver), and finally, increased fluid in the brain
that causes seizures, strokes, and ultimately, the brain shutting down
because there's not enough room in the cranium for the brainstem to
keep functioning. I strongly suspect that a woman in the 1950s was
pretty much a goner if she reached that state.
Since pre-eclampsia can develop without showing any or many symptoms,
sometimes women didn't reveal the pathology until they started
seizuring, etc. Many women with pre-eclampsia don't develop
eclampsia, and when it is detected in a pregnancy the woman is
followed very closely, and basically everyone hopes that she makes it
long enough to deliver the babies safely, it's an extremely common
reason for premature c-sections, indeed, I had a good friend deliver
twins a year ago, where hanging on for a couple of more weeks probably
allowed her to produce two healthy kids and stay healthy herself.
It's remains one of the most common pregnancy-related killer of women
in the western world.
--
nj"internym here"m
Send reggae, guns & numbers.
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
I won't snip any of this due to the spoiler warning.
sentence. However, at the point you're describing, the woman has had
the convulsions, been deprived of oxygen, and is in a coma, so she's
going to die in all likelihood - indeed, I think there's a pretty high
risk of that happening now if she has got to those stages.
It (and pre-eclampsia) is a pretty strange condition, but all you
really need to know about it is that it doesn't stop until the
placenta is removed, and that the ultimate result of a complicated
cascade of processes is that the fetus ends up without enough blood to
thrive, and the woman ends up with blood clots, multiple organ failure
(kidney, lung and liver), and finally, increased fluid in the brain
that causes seizures, strokes, and ultimately, the brain shutting down
because there's not enough room in the cranium for the brainstem to
keep functioning. I strongly suspect that a woman in the 1950s was
pretty much a goner if she reached that state.
Since pre-eclampsia can develop without showing any or many symptoms,
sometimes women didn't reveal the pathology until they started
seizuring, etc. Many women with pre-eclampsia don't develop
eclampsia, and when it is detected in a pregnancy the woman is
followed very closely, and basically everyone hopes that she makes it
long enough to deliver the babies safely, it's an extremely common
reason for premature c-sections, indeed, I had a good friend deliver
twins a year ago, where hanging on for a couple of more weeks probably
allowed her to produce two healthy kids and stay healthy herself.
It's remains one of the most common pregnancy-related killer of women
in the western world.
--
nj"internym here"m
Send reggae, guns & numbers.
Greg Goss
Oct 28, 2012, 9:08:04 PM10/28/12
to
>Anyway, in this episode, one of the mothers dies of eclampsia. The
>baby--27 weeks along--was lost as well. And the way it was presented,
>once they knew it was eclampsia, they knew the mother was going to
>die, but didn't know how soon. It's hard to judge the time frame on
>this show, but she appeared to hang on for a day, never regaining
>consciousness.
>
>Is that plausible? What's happening biologically during that time? Is
>it an organ failure kind of thing? Caused by what? Could they really
>be *sure* she wasn't going to wake up and start improving?
One of my friends had her baby in an "emergency C-section" about three
>baby--27 weeks along--was lost as well. And the way it was presented,
>once they knew it was eclampsia, they knew the mother was going to
>die, but didn't know how soon. It's hard to judge the time frame on
>this show, but she appeared to hang on for a day, never regaining
>consciousness.
>
>Is that plausible? What's happening biologically during that time? Is
>it an organ failure kind of thing? Caused by what? Could they really
>be *sure* she wasn't going to wake up and start improving?
hours after her symptoms started in 2003. The two of them, including
the six-week preemie, were released within two days. (The daugher,
still being introduced as negative a month old, came to our
housewarming / bon voyage combo party.)
But I've never internalized a definition for eclampsia. Or the "pre"
version. I forget which hers was.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Opus the Penguin
Oct 28, 2012, 11:37:19 PM10/28/12
to
the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. The woman wasn't
hooked up to any life support. This is the early 50s, so no feeding
tubes or intravenous nutrition, no ventilator or heart-lung machine.
If the eclampsia has gotten far enough that a coma is induced, you
pretty much know the end result even if you can't predict the exact
progression.
Maybe the number of recoveries from eclampsia-induced coma was non-
zero even before modern life support. I don't know. But at best, I'd
guess such recoveries were so vanishingly rare that it would have
been a cruelty even to mention the possibility to the husband.
doc...@gmail.com
Oct 29, 2012, 1:59:44 AM10/29/12
to njm...@gmail.com
> Many women with pre-eclampsia don't develop
>
> eclampsia,
> and when it is detected in a pregnancy the woman is
>
> followed very closely, and basically everyone hopes that she makes it
>
> long enough to deliver the babies safely, it's an extremely common
>
> reason for premature c-sections, indeed, I had a good friend deliver
>
> twins a year ago, where hanging on for a couple of more weeks probably
>
> allowed her to produce two healthy kids and stay healthy herself.
>
>
>
> It's remains one of the most common pregnancy-related killer of women
>
> in the western world.
> --
Bob in the Bronx
Pastime
Oct 29, 2012, 3:02:05 PM10/29/12
to
Opus the Penguin wrote:
>(I wonder if people back then
> really mentioned how awesome it is to have a National Health Service
> as often as the show seems to. Maybe since it was fairly new and a
> huge improvement over the previous situation, they actually did. It
> kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs where the
> actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of the script,
> while still in character. Also, it seems kind of tacky to keep
> bringing this up in front of us poor Americans. They could've sent us
> an edited version, but whatever.)
Obviously, I've not seen that programme, what with me living under a
>(I wonder if people back then
> really mentioned how awesome it is to have a National Health Service
> as often as the show seems to. Maybe since it was fairly new and a
> huge improvement over the previous situation, they actually did. It
> kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs where the
> actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of the script,
> while still in character. Also, it seems kind of tacky to keep
> bringing this up in front of us poor Americans. They could've sent us
> an edited version, but whatever.)
rock and all, but my understanding is that yes, the new NHS was a
*major* topic of conversation in its early years. The idea that you
could just walk in and see a doctor or a dentist and emerge
financially unscathed was a very pleasant cultural shock indeed.
They felt that they'd earned it too, after the privations of WWII, and
would certainly have been horrified to know that Shawn's idols would
be gradually dismantling the whole affair fifty years later.
Ditto for council housing, among the working class at least, although
that took much less time for Shawn's heroes to dismember.
--
John
Opus the Penguin
Oct 29, 2012, 5:44:41 PM10/29/12
to
Pastime (wsub...@tznvy.pbz) wrote:
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>>(I wonder if people back then
>> really mentioned how awesome it is to have a National Health
>> Service as often as the show seems to. Maybe since it was fairly
>> new and a huge improvement over the previous situation, they
>> actually did. It kind of comes off like those old time radio and
>> TV programs where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor
>> as part of the script, while still in character. Also, it seems
>> kind of tacky to keep bringing this up in front of us poor
>> Americans. They could've sent us an edited version, but
>> whatever.)
>
> Obviously, I've not seen that programme, what with me living under
> a rock and all, but my understanding is that yes, the new NHS was
> a *major* topic of conversation in its early years. The idea that
> you could just walk in and see a doctor or a dentist and emerge
> financially unscathed was a very pleasant cultural shock indeed.
>
> They felt that they'd earned it too, after the privations of WWII,
That totally makes sense. I have this vague recollection that C. S.
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>>(I wonder if people back then
>> really mentioned how awesome it is to have a National Health
>> Service as often as the show seems to. Maybe since it was fairly
>> new and a huge improvement over the previous situation, they
>> actually did. It kind of comes off like those old time radio and
>> TV programs where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor
>> as part of the script, while still in character. Also, it seems
>> kind of tacky to keep bringing this up in front of us poor
>> Americans. They could've sent us an edited version, but
>> whatever.)
>
> Obviously, I've not seen that programme, what with me living under
> a rock and all, but my understanding is that yes, the new NHS was
> a *major* topic of conversation in its early years. The idea that
> you could just walk in and see a doctor or a dentist and emerge
> financially unscathed was a very pleasant cultural shock indeed.
>
> They felt that they'd earned it too, after the privations of WWII,
Lewis mentioned the topic in one of his letters to an American woman.
He was commiserating with her over some of her health problems and
mentioned his own need to see the dentist. In passing, he mentioned
that at least he didn't have to pay, which was rather nice. Something
along those lines.
Lewis didn't do much politics (thankfully), but what he did tended
toward wanting individual rights and freedom from government
intrusion. He doesn't seem to have thought the NHS was any sort of
threat to those values.
I'd love to visit the parallel universe where the US instituted a
similar program right after WWII. I just want to see how things
turned out. Well ... as long as I'm there, maybe I'll pick up some of
my prescriptions.
Tim Wright
Oct 29, 2012, 7:48:16 PM10/29/12
to
dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I ask is as follows.
Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity contestants had to guess
who was the real person and who were fakes. The "real person" was
British. One of the celebrities (who was also British) asked one of the
contestants "Who made your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have
false teeth. After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked
the British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied that
once dental had been added to NHS most older people got their teeth
pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that dental was not
included in the original NHS.
Or, as I postulated above, am I full of it?
--
Tim W
N Jill Marsh
Oct 29, 2012, 8:01:43 PM10/29/12
to
rOn Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:59:44 -0700 (PDT), "rob...@bestweb.net"
Hippocrates commented that headache, a feeling of heaviness and
convulsions during pregnancy is pretty bad, Mariceau described the
condition in much more detail in the late 1600s, "eclampsia" was
coined to describe the condition in 1739 by Bossier de Sauvages, and
through the late 18th and 19th centuries it was recognized that
certain symptoms predisposed a woman to eclampsia, and the term
"pre-ecplampsia" has been used since about 1897.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951301/
>And it continues to defeat understanding of its pathology. When I took Obs-Gyn, they thought they'd finally gotten a handle on it, and were practically congratulating themselves in the belief that it was in almost all cases a relative deficiency of Mg that could be remedied by prompt IV administr'n of MgSO4 to someone in pre-eclampsia. From what I've heard since, it seems they were waaaay off in thinking that, to the point that such an injection is not even considered helpful these days.
I think they just do a c-section if the fetus is sufficiently
developed, but convulsion prevention is still done using magnesium
sulphate.
Hippocrates commented that headache, a feeling of heaviness and
convulsions during pregnancy is pretty bad, Mariceau described the
condition in much more detail in the late 1600s, "eclampsia" was
coined to describe the condition in 1739 by Bossier de Sauvages, and
through the late 18th and 19th centuries it was recognized that
certain symptoms predisposed a woman to eclampsia, and the term
"pre-ecplampsia" has been used since about 1897.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951301/
>And it continues to defeat understanding of its pathology. When I took Obs-Gyn, they thought they'd finally gotten a handle on it, and were practically congratulating themselves in the belief that it was in almost all cases a relative deficiency of Mg that could be remedied by prompt IV administr'n of MgSO4 to someone in pre-eclampsia. From what I've heard since, it seems they were waaaay off in thinking that, to the point that such an injection is not even considered helpful these days.
developed, but convulsion prevention is still done using magnesium
sulphate.
Opus the Penguin
Oct 29, 2012, 8:18:50 PM10/29/12
to
Tim Wright (tlwri...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before,
> anyway, was dental always part of NHS in England?
Good question. Regarding my C. S. Lewis anecdote, my vague memory is
> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before,
> anyway, was dental always part of NHS in England?
dental and mid- to late 50s. But I could be wrong about any or all of
that.
Pastime
Oct 30, 2012, 1:19:29 PM10/30/12
to
thought that dental work was part of the NHS from the beginning in
1948, and a bit of casual Googling hasn't shown any different.
I think there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing regarding basic
prescription charges in the early 1950s, and perhaps dental charges
were part of that, but I'm pretty sure dentists were in the health
service from the start.
--
John
Les Albert
Oct 30, 2012, 2:00:22 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:29 +0000, Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz>
wrote:
beginning but there was (and still is) a charge:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1948, patients have been charged for some services such as eye
tests, dental care, prescriptions, and aspects of long-term care.
However, these charges are often lower than equivalent services
provided by a private health care provider.
There has been a decreasing availability of NHS dentistry following
the new government contract and a trend towards dentists accepting
private patients only, with 1 in 10 dentists having left the NHS
totally. Many more continue to offer treatment for children under NHS
regs but are disputing the imposed NHS contract
http://tinyurl.com/3rhnu5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les
wrote:
>Tim Wright wrote:
>> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before, anyway, was
>> dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I ask is as follows.
>> Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity contestants had to guess
>> who was the real person and who were fakes. The "real person" was
>> British. One of the celebrities (who was also British) asked one of the
>> contestants "Who made your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have
>> false teeth. After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked
>> the British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied that
>> once dental had been added to NHS most older people got their teeth
>> pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that dental was not
>> included in the original NHS.
>> Or, as I postulated above, am I full of it?
>I don't think you're full of it, but on the other hand I always
>thought that dental work was part of the NHS from the beginning in
>1948, and a bit of casual Googling hasn't shown any different.
>I think there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing regarding basic
>prescription charges in the early 1950s, and perhaps dental charges
>were part of that, but I'm pretty sure dentists were in the health
>service from the start.
According to this site dental services were part of your NHS at the
>> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before, anyway, was
>> dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I ask is as follows.
>> Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity contestants had to guess
>> who was the real person and who were fakes. The "real person" was
>> British. One of the celebrities (who was also British) asked one of the
>> contestants "Who made your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have
>> false teeth. After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked
>> the British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied that
>> once dental had been added to NHS most older people got their teeth
>> pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that dental was not
>> included in the original NHS.
>> Or, as I postulated above, am I full of it?
>I don't think you're full of it, but on the other hand I always
>thought that dental work was part of the NHS from the beginning in
>1948, and a bit of casual Googling hasn't shown any different.
>I think there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing regarding basic
>prescription charges in the early 1950s, and perhaps dental charges
>were part of that, but I'm pretty sure dentists were in the health
>service from the start.
beginning but there was (and still is) a charge:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1948, patients have been charged for some services such as eye
tests, dental care, prescriptions, and aspects of long-term care.
However, these charges are often lower than equivalent services
provided by a private health care provider.
There has been a decreasing availability of NHS dentistry following
the new government contract and a trend towards dentists accepting
private patients only, with 1 in 10 dentists having left the NHS
totally. Many more continue to offer treatment for children under NHS
regs but are disputing the imposed NHS contract
http://tinyurl.com/3rhnu5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les
Nick Spalding
Oct 30, 2012, 2:07:10 PM10/30/12
to
Pastime wrote, in <gs20985hpq9rf69ev...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:29 +0000:
That's my recollection also.
--
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:29 +0000:
--
Nick Spalding
Les Albert
Oct 30, 2012, 2:37:31 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:07:10 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:
The web site about British NHS that I posted about earlier,
http://tinyurl.com/3rhnu5 confirms what you and pastime said, but
there were always charges for dental.
Les
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3rhnu5 confirms what you and pastime said, but
there were always charges for dental.
Les
Pastime
Oct 30, 2012, 2:38:11 PM10/30/12
to
you have done, even today much dental work is free to NHS patients.
Fillings, extractions and so on are free, but deep-cleaning (as
opposed to scale and polish) is charged for, for example.
--
John
Pastime
Oct 30, 2012, 2:40:22 PM10/30/12
to
students, people on benefits, and so on.
--
John
Peter Boulding
Oct 30, 2012, 3:39:26 PM10/30/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:40:22 +0000, Pastime <wsub...@tznvy.pbz> wrote in
<6n709856bluojo4a1...@4ax.com>:
>> I think that article is at best badly phrased. Depending on what work
>> you have done, even today much dental work is free to NHS patients.
>> Fillings, extractions and so on are free, but deep-cleaning (as
>> opposed to scale and polish) is charged for, for example.
>
>Ah, following the references it looks like that only applies to
>students, people on benefits, and so on.
From
<http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/dentists/Pages/nhs-dental-charges.aspx>
There are three standard charges for all NHS dental treatments:
Band 1 course of treatment – £17.50
This covers an examination, diagnosis (including X-rays), advice on how
to prevent future problems, a scale and polish if needed, and application of
fluoride varnish or fissure sealant.
Band 2 course of treatment – £48.00
This covers everything listed in Band 1 above, plus any further
treatment such as fillings, root canal work or removal of teeth.
Band 3 course of treatment – £209.00
This covers everything listed in Bands 1 and 2 above, plus crowns,
dentures and bridges.
As John says, certain groups are exempt from the above charges.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
<6n709856bluojo4a1...@4ax.com>:
>> I think that article is at best badly phrased. Depending on what work
>> you have done, even today much dental work is free to NHS patients.
>> Fillings, extractions and so on are free, but deep-cleaning (as
>> opposed to scale and polish) is charged for, for example.
>
>Ah, following the references it looks like that only applies to
>students, people on benefits, and so on.
<http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/dentists/Pages/nhs-dental-charges.aspx>
There are three standard charges for all NHS dental treatments:
Band 1 course of treatment – £17.50
This covers an examination, diagnosis (including X-rays), advice on how
to prevent future problems, a scale and polish if needed, and application of
fluoride varnish or fissure sealant.
Band 2 course of treatment – £48.00
This covers everything listed in Band 1 above, plus any further
treatment such as fillings, root canal work or removal of teeth.
Band 3 course of treatment – £209.00
This covers everything listed in Bands 1 and 2 above, plus crowns,
dentures and bridges.
As John says, certain groups are exempt from the above charges.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Mark Brader
Oct 30, 2012, 4:54:10 PM10/30/12
to
"Opus the Penguin":
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
m...@vex.net | what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride
> It kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs
> where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of
> the script, while still in character.
And what's so "old time"y about that?
> where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of
> the script, while still in character.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
m...@vex.net | what you think it means." -- The Princess Bride
Nick Spalding
Oct 30, 2012, 5:03:24 PM10/30/12
to
Les Albert wrote, in <jg7098tnavv6pbeg4...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:37:31 -0700:
Of course when the NHS started I was only a teenager and my pa would
have been picking up any tab.
--
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:37:31 -0700:
have been picking up any tab.
--
Nick Spalding
D.F. Manno
Oct 30, 2012, 6:34:56 PM10/30/12
to
In article <eqydnffSMrNdiBLN...@supernews.com>,
treatment (for £1) started in 1952.
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/nhshistory/Pages/NHShistory1948.aspx
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before, anyway, was
> dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I ask is as follows.
> Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity contestants had to guess
> who was the real person and who were fakes. The "real person" was
> British. One of the celebrities (who was also British) asked one of the
> contestants "Who made your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have
> false teeth. After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked
> the British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied that
> once dental had been added to NHS most older people got their teeth
> pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that dental was not
> included in the original NHS.
It was not. The NHS started in 1948. Coverage of ordinary dental
> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before, anyway, was
> dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I ask is as follows.
> Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity contestants had to guess
> who was the real person and who were fakes. The "real person" was
> British. One of the celebrities (who was also British) asked one of the
> contestants "Who made your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have
> false teeth. After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked
> the British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied that
> once dental had been added to NHS most older people got their teeth
> pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that dental was not
> included in the original NHS.
treatment (for £1) started in 1952.
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/nhshistory/Pages/NHShistory1948.aspx
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Opus the Penguin
Oct 30, 2012, 10:24:44 PM10/30/12
to
This is what the page says about the NHS at its inception in 1948:
"For the first time, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
opticians and dentists are brought together under one umbrella
organisation to provide services that are free for all at the point
of delivery."
1952 was notable for introducing the 1 shilling charge for
prescriptions and the £1 charge for dental. Unless I'm
misunderstanding, those things were previously free.
D.F. Manno
Oct 31, 2012, 10:47:16 AM10/31/12
to
In article <XnsA0FCD950E5BC0op...@127.0.0.1>,
> This is what the page says about the NHS at its inception in 1948:
> "For the first time, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
> opticians and dentists are brought together under one umbrella
> organisation to provide services that are free for all at the point
> of delivery."
>
> 1952 was notable for introducing the 1 shilling charge for
> prescriptions and the �1 charge for dental. Unless I'm
> misunderstanding, those things were previously free.
--
> D.F. Manno (dfm...@mail.com) wrote:
>
> > In article <eqydnffSMrNdiBLN...@supernews.com>,
> > Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before,
> >> anyway, was dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I
> >> ask is as follows. Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity
> >> contestants had to guess who was the real person and who were
> >> fakes. The "real person" was British. One of the celebrities
> >> (who was also British) asked one of the contestants "Who made
> >> your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have false teeth.
> >> After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked the
> >> British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied
> >> that once dental had been added to NHS most older people got
> >> their teeth pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that
> >> dental was not included in the original NHS.
> >
> > It was not. The NHS started in 1948. Coverage of ordinary dental
> > treatment (for �1) started in 1952.
> >
> > http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/nhshistory/Pages/NHShistory1948.aspx
>
> I think you may be misreading that.
I know. I wish cancelling posts worked.
>
> > In article <eqydnffSMrNdiBLN...@supernews.com>,
> > Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, maybe I'm full of BS, I've been accused of that before,
> >> anyway, was dental always part of NHS in England? The reason I
> >> ask is as follows. Many years ago, on a game show, the celebrity
> >> contestants had to guess who was the real person and who were
> >> fakes. The "real person" was British. One of the celebrities
> >> (who was also British) asked one of the contestants "Who made
> >> your false teeth?" He replied that he didn't have false teeth.
> >> After the real person was revealed, the moderator asked the
> >> British celebrity why he asked about false teeth. He replied
> >> that once dental had been added to NHS most older people got
> >> their teeth pulled and got dentures. This led me to presume that
> >> dental was not included in the original NHS.
> >
> > It was not. The NHS started in 1948. Coverage of ordinary dental
> > treatment (for �1) started in 1952.
> >
> > http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/nhshistory/Pages/NHShistory1948.aspx
>
> I think you may be misreading that.
> This is what the page says about the NHS at its inception in 1948:
> "For the first time, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
> opticians and dentists are brought together under one umbrella
> organisation to provide services that are free for all at the point
> of delivery."
>
> 1952 was notable for introducing the 1 shilling charge for
> prescriptions and the �1 charge for dental. Unless I'm
> misunderstanding, those things were previously free.
--
S. Checker
Oct 31, 2012, 3:31:27 PM10/31/12
to
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> "Opus the Penguin":
>> It kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs
>> where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of
>> the script, while still in character.
>
> And what's so "old time"y about that?
You are so right, Mark! I almost dropped my Coca Cola when I read what
> "Opus the Penguin":
>> It kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs
>> where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of
>> the script, while still in character.
>
> And what's so "old time"y about that?
you wrote. Right on top of my Taco Bell Doritos Loco Taco! What a shame
that would have been!
--
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible
and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Les Albert
Oct 31, 2012, 7:02:06 PM10/31/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:31:27 -0400, spa...@gmail.com (S. Checker)
wrote:
Makeover: Weight Loss Edition".
Les
wrote:
>Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>> "Opus the Penguin":
>>> It kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs
>>> where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of
>>> the script, while still in character.
>> And what's so "old time"y about that?
>You are so right, Mark! I almost dropped my Coca Cola when I read what
>you wrote. Right on top of my Taco Bell Doritos Loco Taco! What a shame
>that would have been!
That sounds like it might be a line from the reality TV show "Extreme
>> "Opus the Penguin":
>>> It kind of comes off like those old time radio and TV programs
>>> where the actors would talk about the show's sponsor as part of
>>> the script, while still in character.
>> And what's so "old time"y about that?
>You are so right, Mark! I almost dropped my Coca Cola when I read what
>you wrote. Right on top of my Taco Bell Doritos Loco Taco! What a shame
>that would have been!
Makeover: Weight Loss Edition".
Les
0 new messages