Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Preemies: Confronting Our Infant Mortality Crisis
25 views
Skip to first unread message
dav...@agent.com
Jul 19, 2012, 3:26:27 AM7/19/12
to
http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/130510013.html
Empty Cradles: Confronting Our Infant Mortality Crisis
Sept. 24, 2011
[...]
The main cause of respiratory distress in premature babies is a
lack of surfactant, a natural coating that plays a vital role in
preventing the baby's air sacs from collapsing. Development of
artificial surfactant in the mid- to late 80s has had a profound
effect on infant mortality in general & respiratory distress in
specific. Surfactant lowered the odds of death for very low-birth
weight babies by 30%. The substance was solely responsible for 80%
of the decline in U.S. infant mortality between 1989-90, according
to a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that single
year, infant deaths dropped by 1,300. "We know that outcomes are
certainly better than they were 20 to 30 years ago, and that's
largely because of technical advances in the NICU," said Allison
Bryant Mantha, a doctor of obstetrics/gynecology who specializes
in high-risk pregnancies at Mass General Hospital. In addition to
surfactant, Mantha cited two other factors that have increased
survival of very premature babies: improvements in ventilation for
newborns; and steroids that promote fetal lung development. In the
last half-century, medical advances helped cut the mortality rate
for low-weight babies to 55.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, about
1/3 of the 1960 rate. But the technology that's saving tiny babies
in the NICU has not come cheaply. Today, one of every 8 American
babies is premature. The annual economic cost of prematurity is at
least $26.2 billion, according to a 2006 report by the Institute of
Medicine.
That conservative estimate includes lifetime indirect costs, such
as special education and lost productivity, from four conditions
known to affect premature infants at higher rates - cerebral palsy,
mental disability, impaired vision & hearing loss. The calculation
does not include indirect costs related to lower intelligence,
learning disabilities or behavioral problems, which also occur at
higher rates among children who are born months prematurely. Still,
the estimate works out to more than $250 billion over a decade -
more than $2,000 for every single household. In the workplace,
prematurity affects one in 10 babies covered by employer health
plans, driving up birth-associated health care costs to employers
by more than 300%, according to the March of Dimes. The cost of
prematurity is borne by everyone in the form of higher insurance
premiums - and indirectly in lower wages for people who get health
benefits through an employer - and in higher taxes.
[...]
Empty Cradles: Confronting Our Infant Mortality Crisis
Sept. 24, 2011
[...]
The main cause of respiratory distress in premature babies is a
lack of surfactant, a natural coating that plays a vital role in
preventing the baby's air sacs from collapsing. Development of
artificial surfactant in the mid- to late 80s has had a profound
effect on infant mortality in general & respiratory distress in
specific. Surfactant lowered the odds of death for very low-birth
weight babies by 30%. The substance was solely responsible for 80%
of the decline in U.S. infant mortality between 1989-90, according
to a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that single
year, infant deaths dropped by 1,300. "We know that outcomes are
certainly better than they were 20 to 30 years ago, and that's
largely because of technical advances in the NICU," said Allison
Bryant Mantha, a doctor of obstetrics/gynecology who specializes
in high-risk pregnancies at Mass General Hospital. In addition to
surfactant, Mantha cited two other factors that have increased
survival of very premature babies: improvements in ventilation for
newborns; and steroids that promote fetal lung development. In the
last half-century, medical advances helped cut the mortality rate
for low-weight babies to 55.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, about
1/3 of the 1960 rate. But the technology that's saving tiny babies
in the NICU has not come cheaply. Today, one of every 8 American
babies is premature. The annual economic cost of prematurity is at
least $26.2 billion, according to a 2006 report by the Institute of
Medicine.
That conservative estimate includes lifetime indirect costs, such
as special education and lost productivity, from four conditions
known to affect premature infants at higher rates - cerebral palsy,
mental disability, impaired vision & hearing loss. The calculation
does not include indirect costs related to lower intelligence,
learning disabilities or behavioral problems, which also occur at
higher rates among children who are born months prematurely. Still,
the estimate works out to more than $250 billion over a decade -
more than $2,000 for every single household. In the workplace,
prematurity affects one in 10 babies covered by employer health
plans, driving up birth-associated health care costs to employers
by more than 300%, according to the March of Dimes. The cost of
prematurity is borne by everyone in the form of higher insurance
premiums - and indirectly in lower wages for people who get health
benefits through an employer - and in higher taxes.
[...]
Kalkidas
Jul 19, 2012, 2:48:00 PM7/19/12
to
Dexter
Jul 20, 2012, 11:11:11 AM7/20/12
to
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:ju9kp2$pm3$2...@dont-email.me...
__________________________________________________
Neonatal ICU's fight evolution every day.
Regards,
news:ju9kp2$pm3$2...@dont-email.me...
Neonatal ICU's fight evolution every day.
Regards,
wiki trix
Jul 20, 2012, 12:57:34 PM7/20/12
to
dav...@agent.com
Jul 20, 2012, 1:54:52 PM7/20/12
to
together in the schools & let students decide for themselves.
It's much more important to resolve the issues of health care,
overpopulation & sustainability. Get into the real world!
Boikat
Jul 20, 2012, 2:01:13 PM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 12:54嚙緘m, dav...@agent.com wrote:
Of course, you're probably all for that, since ignorance leads to poor
living standards, and which can lead to more children dying form
preventable diseases.
> It's much more important to resolve the issues of health care,
> overpopulation & sustainability.
Your solution is to sit back and let everyone die, and actually
resolving the issues of healt care, overpopulation and sustainability
would mean actually puting forth an effort to solve those problems,
which is too much work, which is a dirty word.
> Get into the real world!
You should consider joining the rest of the human race some day, loon-
boy.
Boikat
> 嚙皺alkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >>http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/130510013.html
>
> >> Empty Cradles: Confronting Our Infant Mortality Crisis
> >> Sept. 24, 2011
> >> [...]
> >> The main cause of respiratory distress in premature babies is a
> >> lack of surfactant, a natural coating that plays a vital role in
> >> preventing the baby's air sacs from collapsing. Development of
> >> artificial surfactant in the mid- to late 80s has had a profound
> >> effect on infant mortality in general & respiratory distress in
> >> specific. 嚙磅urfactant lowered the odds of death for very low-birth
> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >>http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/130510013.html
>
> >> Empty Cradles: Confronting Our Infant Mortality Crisis
> >> Sept. 24, 2011
> >> [...]
> >> The main cause of respiratory distress in premature babies is a
> >> lack of surfactant, a natural coating that plays a vital role in
> >> preventing the baby's air sacs from collapsing. Development of
> >> artificial surfactant in the mid- to late 80s has had a profound
> >> effect on infant mortality in general & respiratory distress in
> >> weight babies by 30%. The substance was solely responsible for 80%
> >> of the decline in U.S. infant mortality between 1989-90, according
> >> to a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that single
> >> year, infant deaths dropped by 1,300. 嚙�We know that outcomes are
> >> of the decline in U.S. infant mortality between 1989-90, according
> >> to a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that single
> >> certainly better than they were 20 to 30 years ago, and that's
> >> largely because of technical advances in the NICU," said Allison
> >> Bryant Mantha, a doctor of obstetrics/gynecology who specializes
> >> in high-risk pregnancies at Mass General Hospital. 嚙瘢n addition to
> >> largely because of technical advances in the NICU," said Allison
> >> Bryant Mantha, a doctor of obstetrics/gynecology who specializes
> >> surfactant, Mantha cited two other factors that have increased
> >> survival of very premature babies: improvements in ventilation for
> >> newborns; and steroids that promote fetal lung development. 嚙瘢n the
> >> survival of very premature babies: improvements in ventilation for
> >> last half-century, medical advances helped cut the mortality rate
> >> for low-weight babies to 55.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, about
> >> 1/3 of the 1960 rate. 嚙畿ut the technology that's saving tiny babies
> >> for low-weight babies to 55.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, about
> >> in the NICU has not come cheaply. Today, one of every 8 American
> >> babies is premature. The annual economic cost of prematurity is at
> >> least $26.2 billion, according to a 2006 report by the Institute of
> >> Medicine.
>
> >> That conservative estimate includes lifetime indirect costs, such
> >> as special education and lost productivity, from four conditions
> >> known to affect premature infants at higher rates - cerebral palsy,
> >> mental disability, impaired vision & hearing loss. 嚙確he calculation
> >> babies is premature. The annual economic cost of prematurity is at
> >> least $26.2 billion, according to a 2006 report by the Institute of
> >> Medicine.
>
> >> That conservative estimate includes lifetime indirect costs, such
> >> as special education and lost productivity, from four conditions
> >> known to affect premature infants at higher rates - cerebral palsy,
> >> does not include indirect costs related to lower intelligence,
> >> learning disabilities or behavioral problems, which also occur at
> >> higher rates among children who are born months prematurely. Still,
> >> the estimate works out to more than $250 billion over a decade -
> >> more than $2,000 for every single household. 嚙瘢n the workplace,
> >> learning disabilities or behavioral problems, which also occur at
> >> higher rates among children who are born months prematurely. Still,
> >> the estimate works out to more than $250 billion over a decade -
> >> prematurity affects one in 10 babies covered by employer health
> >> plans, driving up birth-associated health care costs to employers
> >> by more than 300%, according to the March of Dimes. 嚙確he cost of
> >> plans, driving up birth-associated health care costs to employers
> >> prematurity is borne by everyone in the form of higher insurance
> >> premiums - and indirectly in lower wages for people who get health
> >> benefits through an employer - and in higher taxes.
> >> [...]
>
> >What does this have to do with the subject matter of talk.origins?
>
> It's a trivial matter to present both evolution & creationism
> together in the schools & let students decide for themselves.
Does that apply to math? History? Sex Ed?
> >> premiums - and indirectly in lower wages for people who get health
> >> benefits through an employer - and in higher taxes.
> >> [...]
>
> >What does this have to do with the subject matter of talk.origins?
>
> It's a trivial matter to present both evolution & creationism
> together in the schools & let students decide for themselves.
Of course, you're probably all for that, since ignorance leads to poor
living standards, and which can lead to more children dying form
preventable diseases.
> It's much more important to resolve the issues of health care,
> overpopulation & sustainability.
resolving the issues of healt care, overpopulation and sustainability
would mean actually puting forth an effort to solve those problems,
which is too much work, which is a dirty word.
> Get into the real world!
boy.
Boikat
Kalkidas
Jul 20, 2012, 2:09:31 PM7/20/12
to
> It's much more important to resolve the issues of health care,
> overpopulation & sustainability. Get into the real world!
In other words, your post has nothing to do with the subject matter of
> overpopulation & sustainability. Get into the real world!
talk.origins. So please post these kinds of things on some other newsgroup.
dav...@agent.com
Jul 20, 2012, 3:54:40 PM7/20/12
to
>t.o. Please post these kinds of things on some other newsgroup.
Obama does believe in evolution and supports teaching it in
public school classrooms. He has also declared that intelligent
design and creationism should not be taught in a science
classroom as they are more religion and faith based.
======================
====================
7/20/12: "Today is a day for prayer and reflection..." --Obama
Boikat
Jul 20, 2012, 4:10:08 PM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 2:54�pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> �Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
> �Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
Boikat
David Iain Greig
Jul 31, 2012, 3:36:39 PM7/31/12
to
>>What does this have to do with the subject matter of talk.origins?
>
> It's a trivial matter to present both evolution & creationism
> together in the schools & let students decide for themselves.
> It's much more important to resolve the issues of health care,
> overpopulation & sustainability. Get into the real world!
Uh, this newsgroup is for evolution. Spamming, which is what you're
>
> It's a trivial matter to present both evolution & creationism
> together in the schools & let students decide for themselves.
> It's much more important to resolve the issues of health care,
> overpopulation & sustainability. Get into the real world!
doing, is a bannable offense. Another name for what you do
is 'shit and run posting' and it is at attempt to suppress speech.
Consider this a warning.
--D.
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
Greg G.
Jul 31, 2012, 9:08:40 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 20, 3:54�pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> �Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
> �Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
because it is not science. Creationism is religion and ID is
creationism in a stolen lab coat.
0 new messages