More than four in ten maternity units turn away women in labour

Maternity units are turning away women in labour because they have no room, figures show.

More than four in ten NHS hospitals refused to accept expectant mothers at least once last year.

The figures, from 103 of the 147 NHS trusts with maternity services, were obtained by the Conservatives under the Freedom of Information Act.

They show that almost one in ten trusts closed more than ten times last year.

And the University of Leicester Hospitals Trust - one of the biggest NHS providers - closed 28 times.

In all, 43 trusts said they had closed their maternity unit, or had been forced to send women to another hospital, at least once in 2007 because they were full.

Lung patients ‘condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs’ 

Hundreds of patients with a rare lung disease will be sentenced to death by plans to stop doctors prescribing a range of drugs on the NHS, it was claimed last night.

Campaigners have condemned proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to withdraw the drugs because they are too expensive.

The condition, pulmonary hypertension, affects an estimated 4,000 people in the UK.

Yet the plans by NICE, the Government’s drug rationing body, mean no life-extending therapies will be available to new patients because the cost of the most expensive exceeds its threshold of £30,000 per head.

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she’s ‘too old’ for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery

A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.

Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.

The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.

“I can’t believe that at 61 I’m too old for this operation,” she said.

At least the grandmother story has a happy ending. All the media exposure force the governments hand. Now she’ll get the surgery.

http://www.sfgate.com/…

San Francisco’s 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven’t deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they’ve only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.

Researchers found that nonviolent thefts dropped by 22 percent within 100 feet of the cameras, but the devices had no effect on burglaries or car theft. And they’ve had no effect on violent crime.

Mayor Gavin Newsom called the report “conclusively inconclusive” on Thursday but said he still wants to install more cameras around the city because they make residents feel safer.

“When I put the first cameras in, I said, ‘This may only move people around the corner,’ ” he said. “But the community there said, ‘We don’t care, we want our alleyway back.’ No one’s actually had a camera up that they wanted torn down in the community.”

But not all city officials think it’s wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents.”In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad,” said Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese. He added that previous studies of security cameras in other parts of the country have also shown that they do not deter violent crime.

I’m amazed such logic came out of a police commissioner. You don’t get that very often.

The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren’t allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes.

The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected - except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.

Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.

That stat about the murders is just wonderful. You can be sure that some pols are just going to twist that to push for 100% camera coverage.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who has long been a critic of the cameras, said the report is further proof they’re not improving public safety.

He said they’re no substitute for attacking the causes of crime and said money would be better invested in community-based policing, anti-violence projects in schools, and services that help ex-prisoners readjust to life in society so they don’t commit more crimes.

How about looking at why they commit crimes in the first place? How many of those crimes are a result of the black market and prohibitions?

I like some of the comments:

newcastle wrote:

Actually fatsengalla - they DO work - I have first hand experience of this from the UK…… BUT and it’s a big one… THEY HAVE TO BE USED PROPERLY, which appears to be the problem, and not have their use hampered by bogus claims about privacy and other such rubbish.

froggy_08 wrote:

The fact that the cameras are stopping crime in the areas in which they are located indicates that, contrary to the story’s headline, they are working. The big problem with the way SF is using the cameras is that they are much too visible, the police are not allowed to view them or change their direction which is idiotic and there aren’t enough of them. The idea that cameras that are in public places somehow violate ones right to privacy is madness. How about all the cameras in banks, stores and other public places?

I know… we should put cameras in newcastle’s home just in case he commits a crime. Those UK cameras worked so well in helping stop those guys who blew up those buses a few years back. Oh and catching that Brazilian terrorist plumber the London police decided needed bullets implanted in his skull. Same goes for froggy_08. Obviously since people come and go in their home it’s a “public” place. At least one pointed into the yard. It’s not like banks and stores are private property or anything and those in their are volunteering to be seen on camera and pay for their operation.

Really what we should do is a setup a network of cameras which cover every inch of land which a crime could be committed on. We link them all up to high powered computer farms which use facial and movement recognition software to track every single object in the cameras view. We feed that into a giant database which is analyzed in realtime for suspicious individuals and alert the police. It can watch what you get at the store or what food you’ve purchased and if anything bought could be used for malisious actions you will be flagged. If you have ingested too many calories or fatty foods the NHS will be alerted and you’ll receive a fine for possibly costing the government more than your share of healthcare costs.

At some point criminals will just start wearing clothing with surface mount IR LEDs on them which will blind the cameras.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/…

Padded lampposts are being trialled in a London street to protect inattentive pedestrians.A pilot scheme has been launched in Brick Lane after it was found to have the highest number of ‘walking and texting’ injuries in the country.

A study carried out by 118 118 found one in ten people has hurt themselves while focused on their mobile phone screen.

The charity Living Streets is so concerned that it has teamed up with the directory enquiries service to test a scheme to wrap up the nation’s lampposts.

A poll will be carried out on Brick Lane to gauge the response of locals.

If successful, the concept will be rolled out in Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool.

Are they going to outlaw sports, biking and running too? I’m surprised this int some national NHS initiative to protect people from themselves because you know… we all have to pay for the injuries they get as a result of being idiots so we should pad the entire country with foam to protect them. Ohhh… even better…. foam suits that everyone has to wear. Or just as they have outlawed texting and holding a mobile phone while drive here in NJ they could ban using a mobile device while walking. I guess that would be more like NYC wanting to ban using audio players while crossing streets. Or give everyone drugs to keep them focused on only one task at a time. No one can run into a lamp post while staring at their phone if they are incapible of doing both at the same time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…

Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets.Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour pledge.

The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 999 calls.

Doctors warned last night that the practice of “patient-stacking” was putting patients’ health at risk.

Figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats show that last year 43,576 patients waited longer than one hour before being let into emergency units.

More than 40,000 patients were kept in ambulances for at least an hour before entering A&E last year

Only seven out of 11 ambulance trusts responded to the survey, so the true figure could be far higher.

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb is writing to health secretary Alan Johnson to demand an urgent investigation into the practice.

“This is evidence of shocking systematic failure in our emergency services,” he said.

Is it me or does 4+ hours not sound like emergency speed? The last quote of the article asks us to take into account that they have over 4 million “patient journeys undertaken by emergency vehicles in 2006/07.” So over 1% of those who take rides in a emergency vehicle spend over an hour in the parking lot because they don’t want to start the clock on the “guaranteed” 4 hours or less treatment in the ER? Over 5 hours. Two things are possibly happening. Because of the ease of access and lack of direct cost to the individual the ER is abused by people who do not actually need emergency care. As a result those who do need care are held up in line waiting for those irresponsible ER users to get through the system. As I’ve and others have said many times before when you attempt ignore the laws of economics you will fail. When you deincentivize personal responsibility you will get less of it. If I have to pay more taxes for “free” emergency care which takes hours or less taxes, higher one time costs and faster care… I’ll gladly take the latter. I don’t understand how people can be OK with replacing potentially more costly care with longer waiting periods. Is waiting months and years in a queue really worth the money supposedly saved when getting serious treatments?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as “out­rageous” and “disgraceful”.

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

This is the “problem” that is created when people want centralized planning and universal coverage while ignoring scarcity.

1. In a system where not all people are covered (can’t afford, discrimination based on previous conditions, etc.) by a service idealists rename it a right. As a right the government is obligated to provide it for the people.
2. Since the government can’t change the scarcity of the service the attempt fails and things get worse as excessive regulation pushes up prices as the market signals and forces are distorted.
3. The failure give the idealists the ammo to push for complete government control.
4. Scarcity still exists and eventually to keep from going into debt the government acknowledges scarcity and must discriminate on who gets services.

You can have your service AND your freedom and I can almost guarantee that competition will push prices down past what a monopolistic government service could provide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…

Millions of people with arthritis, asthma and even heart failure will be urged to treat themselves as part of a Government plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget.

Instead of going to hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out “self care” as the Department of Health (DoH) tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending.

The guidelines could mean people with chronic conditions:

• Monitoring their own heart activity, blood pressure and lung capacity using equipment installed in the home
• Reporting medical information to doctors remotely by telephone or computer
• Administering their own drugs and other treatment to “manage pain” and assessing the significance of changes in their condition
• Using relaxation techniques to relieve stress and avoid “panic” visits to emergency wards.

The Prime Minister claimed the self-care agenda was about increasing patient choice and “personalised” services.

But an internal Government document seen by The Daily Telegraph makes clear that the policy is a money-saving measure, a key plank of DoH plans to cut costs.

So taking away personal responsibility, ignoring scarcity and giving out something for “free” leads to abuse? Who would have thought? At first I had thought this would be simply a story about the later two but I forgot just how inefficient government can be. They were requiring people to come into the office just to report particular information or check blood pressure? These things are easy to do why would you have mandated that in the first place? From what I’ve read places like the UK with its NHS usually have emergency rooms filled with random people with no serious conditions. Panic attacks are not generally serious nor should the behavior be encouraged by allowing any person the ability to walk into the ER and be treated for the smallest thing. These cost savings messures seem pretty obvious to me… it’d just be nice if the British government didn’t try to spin the issue.