Content That dancingdoula Likes - page 3

dancingdoula 2,880 Views

Joined: Jul 3, '07; Posts: 36 (47% Liked) ; Likes: 28

Sorted By Last Like Given (Max 500)
  • Jun 7 '09

    Quote from traumarus
    in the one payor systems though, there is no incentive to pay more since everyone works essentially for the same employer. you will see wages decrease.
    why do so many people assume that with a single payer system wages go down? this isn't generally the case in canada. in my area, a brand new bsn grad starts out making $29.02 an hour. this is higher than many areas in the u.s. you also get a raise every year. if you acquire more education it puts you in a different pay bracket. my wife talked to a cardiac nurse yesterday who has 10 years experience and makes $47 an hour plus shift differentials. this is much higher than many places in the u.s. also the recession has not really impacted nurses here. we don't have to worry about patients not having money to pay for their surgeries because of layoffs, no money etc. my wife finishes her preceptorship this summer and already has several job offers. i realize that there are pros and cons to both systems, i just wanted to point out that single payer systems do not necessarily mean lower wages for nurses.

  • Jun 7 '09

    yes, the baby boomers aging and showing up with more chronic conditions will surely make more of a nursing shortage...

    my hope (and it seems like a long shot) is that single-payer health care is implemented, which will mean we need more of all health care personnel. and hopefully if that happens, the government will see the value in putting more money into nursing education to attract faculty and expand programs. we need a major overhaul of the health care and education systems concurrently to address so many of our social needs!

  • Jun 7 '09

    It is indeed a difficult question and one that can not have a vague or generalized answer. Each case has to be treated individually. The parents experience, education and overall expectations are a huge consideration. While we can indeed save a 24 weeker, the overall chances of it having no long-term complications are slim. So while it's possible to save this child are the parents able to deal with the stress and immense financial concerns of life-long therapy, doctor visits, hospitalizations and more? A telling paragraph in the article is: "Most physicians are comfortable discussing clinical issues with parents, but far fewer are comfortable discussing quality-of-life issues, expected long-term outcomes, or parental preferences."

    I've had 3 preemies. My first child, a 32 weeker, I would have adamantly argued with any parent who thought we should not attempt to save a 24 weeker. Every life is precious, every life should have a chance to be saved. Though she was on a vent for only 3 days and had some developmental delays she's okay now. My next daughter reaffirmed this belief when she was a 36 weeker with no problems.

    Then I had my son at 27 weeks becaues of HELLP syndrome, who was born at 1 lb. 11 oz. with brain bleeds, 3 months on an oscillator, pulmonary hypertension, 6 weeks of nitric, tube fed, so on and so forth the list is too long. I thought I was prepared for this. I had experience with prematurity. It turned out to be so far from the truth. With all my son's complications my full-time job is Dr. appointments, surgeries, specialists, therapists, nurses and more. I don't know what the future holds for my son. He is severely delayed and while he's my whole world I wonder at what cost it is coming to my other 2 children. I wonder if all the invasive tests he experiences are going to help his quality of life at all. This month, with no exaggeration, we have 18 appointments at 16 different doctors and therapists.

    I had no idea. No one in the NICU informed me of the complications. The life-long therapy and how absolutely life changing this would be. Vacations, a date night with my husband, being able to ever again have an 8 hour night of sleep... all in the past and my son is 2 years old. I mistakenly assumed, as was my experience with my 32 weeker, that once we were out of the NICU besides a few more Dr. appointments the preemie experience was over. None of my son's Doctors, NNP's, nurses or anyone else commented on what would happen once we were home.

    While I lay in the hospital for a week knowing we were headed toward a premature birth not a single doctor mentioned what I may have been in store for bringing my child home. While I am extremely grateful for all they did for my son and myself... I got the distinct impression that they have absolutely no focus or consideration for once that mom and child are sent home. It's turned over into someone else's hands. Before any decisions on survivability of newborns and who's hands the decision rests in can be answered, the doctors and nurses MUST do a better job of informing parents not just what complications may lay in store for these babies in the hospital but what the life-long implications will be.

    I'm not saying I would have made the decision to not save my son, since he was 760 grams and at 27 weeks the odds were with him. But if having 2 previous children, and premature at that, I wasn't even aware of these issues how could another parent POSSIBLY be able to consider and make any informed decision? Seeing a few preemies of parents I grew close to in our months and months in the NICU pass away was a heart-wrenching life lesson as I heard the phrase "there are worse things then death" repeated more then a few times. All the power lies in the Doctors hands right now as the vast majority of parents absolutely can not comprehend what decision they are making. And sadly, it's only the parents who have to live with the decision as the Doctors role ends when the child is discharged.

  • May 5 '09

    Quote from Kashia
    Not meaning to be harsh but as health care professionals, how can we inspire, teach, or promote wellness and health if we are not healthy ourselves?
    If I just arrived on this planet and saw two groups of beings. One group was obese with related dis-ease and the other healthy in mind body and spirit. Both are
    representing "health and wellness".....
    Who would you be more open to hearing?

    I think it is time for health care professionals to stop being an example of why you need medical intervention and begin walking the talk.
    I applaud New Zealand for recognizing an imminent health liability.


    Sure you were not meaning to be harsh, but you were worse than harsh. 290 lbs is fat but not THAT FAT,, geeze. You would think she's a big blob of fat laying on a bed unable to fit through the door by the way you're talking.

    I guess I can't inspire, teach or promote wellness anymore because I'm too fat.

  • Apr 18 '09

    To say that it should be left to a clergyman is just plain wrong. Imagine a dying patient in their bed, scared to death, and they ask you to pray with them.
    I think if a patient specifically asks for it, then a nurse could if he or she is comfortable with it. However, for the nurse in the article to say, "There's only one way, you must go home and repent" crosses the line imo. As an atheist, I wouldn't be upset - I'd be angry if someone were to tell me that. Even if the patient had been the one to broach the subject, I think this case clearly illustrates the pitfalls when a nurse gets into discussions about religion. I also agree that preaching your religion to someone who is ill and/or under your care is opportunistic.

  • Apr 18 '09

    I see too many nurses and other employees trying to push their religious ideals on residents where I work, in a long term care facility. I believe that- unless the patient is in their right mind and asks for spiritual guidance, which can then be satisfied appropriately by calling on clergy - the employees should remain professional and stay out of it.

    There is a patient where I work who has been suffering with severe dementia for years and in fact has resided at the facility for well over 5 years. Everyone is aware of her state of mind and inability to make decisions of any kind. This woman was agnostic in her youth and according to her daughter, very set in her ways and disgusted by organized religion. That does not deter more than a few Christians where I work from hoping that she can still "be saved."

    To me, it's as if they believe she was somehow uneducated and made a poor choice based on having too little information, when if fact, she was an educated woman who most probably did a good bit of research on theology and made her decisions based on her own spiritual search. (According to her daughter).

    It infuriates me to see people continuing to haul this woman into church services. She would never go in there voluntarily.

    It's easy enough to understand the dilemma when you put yourself in another persons shoes, in another place. What if you were a devout catholic and suffered with dementia and now everyone thinks they should convert you to their religion, which is........say Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or Jehovah Witness. The list goes on and on.

    And when someone is preaching, they are preaching their beliefs. I just think it's opportunistic.

  • Apr 18 '09

    I'm firmly of the opinion that discussions of spiritual matters should be left to those in the appropriate role... I do not believe that nursing is one of those roles.

    And it certainly is no place to be proselytizing, witnessing, or anything similar.

  • Apr 14 '09

    I realize that this is something that the schools are doing to try to stop childhood obesity but I feel that it is not up to the school system to gauge the "appropriateness" of my child's weight. That's what dietitians and doctors are for. Besides, I have a scale at home; if I'm that concerned that my child's weight is getting out of hand, I'm more than capable of weighing my child myself.

    The job of a school is to educate-why not send home facts about childhood obesity and tips to prevent or control it? That would be more in scope with what the schools should be doing.

  • Apr 8 '09

    I'm all for breastfeeding, have nothing wrong with nursing other babies/kids, whatever! Much better then formula. However....I would be a little upset too since this mother isn't giving out her medical records. I mean, why wouldn't she? If she has nothing to hide, I don't get it?

  • Apr 8 '09

    Yes...I think it is rather uncharitable for the mother who fed the wrong baby not to release her records. The victim of this mistake should be entitled to her peace of mind, at least...I find it rather cruel to deny her of that. On the other hand, I understand the mentality of the mother who fed the wrong baby as she might think since it was not her fault why should she be inconvenienced and obligated to reveal personal information. I guess by saying no to releasing her records is the way the woman who breast fed the wrong baby shows she has still a measure of control in a rather crazy situation. I am sorry for both families involved. feliz3

  • Apr 8 '09

    Quote from New in NY
    In general, nursing someone elses baby is not a problem, lots of humans do it, just not in the US. My best friend and I often fed each others babies when we babysat...never a problem. What about wet nurses? What I can't imagine is not knowing my own baby. Even when I gave birth back in the 80's my babies never left my room.
    Exactly, somehow, people don't have a problem with kids drinking from cows and goats, but when it's human milk, people get freaked out. In this case, I know it's a little different because there's a bonding issue as well.

    Anywho, regarding the comment about race, many babies are 'unraceable' when they're a couple of days old.

  • Apr 8 '09

    In general, nursing someone elses baby is not a problem, lots of humans do it, just not in the US. My best friend and I often fed each others babies when we babysat...never a problem. What about wet nurses? What I can't imagine is not knowing my own baby. Even when I gave birth back in the 80's my babies never left my room.

  • Apr 6 '09

    1 Bottle of Tequila treats test anxiety pretty well.

  • Apr 1 '09

    Quote from Katnip
    The problem with not vaccinating your kids is you could be exposing, not just them, but others such as the unborn or immunocrompromised people.
    I don't disagree. This is one of the factors I took into consideration when choosing to vaccinate my own children. I do, however, feel strongly that it is a personal decision that should not be legislated (I am very anti-big-brother as far as personal choice/freedom is concerned) nor should it be viewed as "abusive" in regard to making the choice against it for ones own children.

  • Apr 1 '09

    Quote from PlaneFlyerRN
    Yeah........let's just roll over and let everyone do as they wish.

    How do you think Florence Nightingale would have viewed this scenario? Hmmmm...... Live and let live?

    I think not. She would have had a MAJOR COW about letting folks think that because they don't want to vaccinate their children that they should be allowed to continue to think that they live in a vacuum and have no effect upon other people.
    Well dear, i believe that circumcision is genital mutilation (because it is) maybe we should prevent you from doing that to your son... nope, you have the right to mutilate your son in this country... just as i, an rn with 24 years acute care experience, have the right not to poison my children with unnecessary MASS immunizations...hep b for newborns etc...please...


close