Slashdot Mirror
How Norway Fought Staph Infections
eldavojohn writes "Studies are showing that Norway's dirtiest hospitals are actually cleaner than most other countries', and the reason for this is that Norwegians stopped taking antibiotics. A number of factors like paid sick leave and now restrictions on advertising for drugs make Norway an anomaly when it comes to diseases like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). A Norwegian doctor explains, 'We don't throw antibiotics at every person with a fever. We tell them to hang on, wait and see, and we give them a Tylenol to feel better.' Norway is the most MRSA free country in the world. In a country like Japan, where 17,000 die from MRSA every year, 'doctors overprescribe antibiotics because they are given financial incentives to push drugs on patients.'"
Endure non-life-threatening illnesses without drugs, it helps you build an immune system. Taking drugs means your body never learns to fend for itself, like a spoiled brat.
While the doctors writing out scrips for antibiotics does play a role, one of the major factors should be patient education. A lot of people think that antibiotics should be used for minor complaints, such as colds. In addition, one major cause of superbugs is the failure of patients to complete a course of antibiotics. They feel better, so they simply stop taking the medications.
Firing Adrian Monk is exactly the opposite of how they conquered MRSA. Bleach and alcohol hand sanitizer wipes are much more powerful tools than penicillin and vancomycin. The idea is simple: bugs don't become superbugs if they are a) dead, or b) never exposed to agents which cause them to become superbugs.
This isn't to say antibiotics are a bad idea altogether. Just that they are very much over prescribed and that a much better way of dealing with an unknown infection is to watch it closely to see if it goes away on its own before you bring out the drugs. Of course, this flies directly in the face of capitalism where companies want to sell more drugs and create targets like superbugs that require ever more powerful drugs which can then be patented and used to essentially extort the life from people and governments; pay us or die... Ah, unintended side effects.
It's a bit like a tragedy of the commons thing. In an aggregate level, it's better to take far less antibiotics. But for any individual it's more beneficial than not to take them for that individual.
I'm not sure about the antibiotics thing. I found it very easy to get antibiotics in the UK. Mind you I had a chest infection twice so it's not like I was asking for them for a scrape on my knee or something silly.
The UK's hospitals suffer from the class system. Some hospitals are real shit tips and some are very nice. It's not necessarily the bad areas that have bad hospitals. As I recall Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge was one of the dirtiest a few years ago. Despite being a fairly rich area I think it's the fact it had a lot of people in general going through it, but the area does have a fair amount of poor people and homeless and the last time I went in there (as a visitor) the support staff was shit.
I suspect there was too much corner cutting on support staff to keep budgets down which you can't really do in a busy hospital, imo.
As I understood it, there are 2 separate things Norway is doing to fight MRSA, and they are not related (although the article doesn't point that out):
1. Norway is tracking the spread of Staph and quarantining victims to limit the spread.
2. According to the article, Norway isn't prescribing modern antibiotics. This ensures that the Staph that is being passed around Norway probably isn't resistant to antibiotics. This does not make Staph less problematic or control its spread in any way. I'm all for stemming the overuse of antibiotics, but this article smacked of propaganda--or it simply didn't tell the whole story.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
In Scandinavia, most doctors are government employees. They have no incentive for prescribing anything and can freely tell their patients to bugger if they ask for useless drugs. Yes, there are disadvantages to "communist" healthcare, but this story shows there are also some clear advantages. A Belgian Doctor once told me he believed antibiotics should be given as a prevention to all kindergarten kids. A Danish study showed you can cut sick days in kindergartens by half by forcing all children to wash their hands twice a day.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
If the USA adopts the same restrictive immigation policy that Norway has, then the Norwegian model for controlling MRSA will work well.
What is ultimately killing Americans is not MRSA but rather is politics. Nothing -- not even deaths from MRSA -- can restrict the flow of immigration.
TFA misrepresents the real reason for the low MRSA rates in Norway. Antibiotic use plays a part, but old fashioned hygiene and quarantining infected patients is by far the most important factor. Hospitals all over the US are already on this, it has nothing to do with whether or not health care is "free".
Or was a quote altered to push a US (only?) brand?
Aspirin was once a trademark, too. Still is, in some places.
Most Americans know "acetaminophen" as Tylenol in the same way that they know "acetylsalicylic acid" as aspirin.
The woman who heads Washington DC's Educ Dep't has such a plan for teachers (ie, to pull in more great teachers), but her intention is also tied up with removing tenure (so they can get rid of lousy teachers).
Another way to solve at least the over-prescription problems in any pill-based country's medical care system is to increase the number of doctors, eg, by:
1. creating many more places for future students at medical school, but... ALSO:
2. link getting such a place with an agreement to serve for a year or two in places where doctors are scarce
Sorry, PCP / Doctor 603, I - for one - am NOT prepared to buy into your (subtle):
"Pay me more or - I swear! - I'm, gonna [continue to] over-prescribe anti-biotics!!!"
More doctors - graduating from med schools with more places for them to study - is a MUCH better place to send the cash you might like to pocket, for your entertainment, etc.
Think:
1. China's Barefoot doctors (past? or still going? Many, low-cost, low-skilled medics),
2. In traditional (ie, Pre-Mao) China, I'm told that patients only paid their doctor when well again, &
2. Have a look at India's "McDonald's-style" eye-care, for its many people with vision problems
as recently documented, eg, in a recent talk at "TED India" (It's now at: http://ted.com/ )
(Altho NOT the same, its org'l model translates easily to primary med care)
If we're ever going to see genuine & significant improvement in our levels of health,
it's going to be by finding & training more genuinely good people (eg, children of
folks, who've died and/or gone bankrupt at the hands of overcrowed &/or greedy
medical "care" - such as it is - businesses)
Such people might be motivated to work for the patient's good - no matter what -
rather than look for excuses to over-medicate, eg, "You need to pay me more!"
Doctor 603, by me, you ought to be in a differnt business, where human health
is NOT put at risk, by your greedy demands for a raise.
You've signed a contract to practice medicine, in patients' interests, not yours!
If you can't do that for the amount you agreed to, you've breached your contract
and should go elsewhere; maybe change profession.
---
By contrast, I'm told that some doctors (eg, in Britain's health care system) are
paid more when patients health RISES &/or when more of them STOP smoking.
Are you prepared to sign a PERFORMANCE-BASED pay agreement like that?
I have NO qualms about you earning more, as your patients' health increase,
but a plea for more money, that holds patients' health hostage, is just WRONG.
Get the AMA & your employer to buy into Performance-Based Compensation
(PBC's) and you'll win our support as you achieve the intended health rise.
In the case of Staph, you or a loved-one could have a car crash NEAR an
infected hospital, & THEIR lives could be more at risk if they needed some
IMMEDIATE emergency surgery, and got it in such a place.
Ie, fixing the system is also in YOUR interest, so, stop begging for more $$$'s
and - like the rest of us - start demanding better Community Health, already!
It's got to feel better (both for you & all of us), than focusing only on the $$$'s.
Try it, you'll like it.
Of course, it could be random coincidence or that you just happen to have a stronger immune system than the average person, but I guess your nonsense rationale sounds better. Also, remind me never to have dinner with you. You might enjoy the taste of your own shit, but I don't.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Well update it then. Jeez
http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
If someone was as careful as possible why should they be sued?
I agree if it comes to light that someone was truly negligent or intentionally caused harm then something should be done about that but if due diligence was made and someone wasn't omniscient enough to see something obscure why should they be punished simply because someone was hurt somewhere? Do you think the Chinese butterfly researcher should be sued for the hurricanes in the Atlantic caused by his butterflies? Sometimes bad things happen and there's no one you can or should be able to sue. Tough luck. You certainly shouldn't sue the ones who were trying their best to help you.
Thank you for the great comment!
I would like to suggest that your "don't play doctor" point is actually part of a much larger problem in our culture these days: a lack of respect/understanding of education/training. They look at you and think, "This just looks like some guy/girl. What makes him so special? I'm a precious snowflake." Well, what makes a physician special is tons of education and a license to practice medicine granted by experts in the field. Yes, experts. They exist. However, increasingly, it seems, we see people lacking even basic qualifications being elevated to high levels of power/responsibility (*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*). We see trained journalists losing out to "citizen journalists" like the hacks at Boing Boing.
We as a society have invested much of our history to devising ways to ensure that we have at least a basic meritocracy, that qualifications are clear and standard, but it seems that a lot of people just are turning their backs on that and thinking they can do better with Wikipedia. It's terrifying.
And to anyone else reading this: Most doctorates are very hard to get, and you don't get them without knowing a lot. Toss a license on there, as in the case of your physician, and these people are Better Than You. Get over it.
I am an American that has been living in Norway for about 10 years now and think this comment is inaccurate. From my experience, I agree there are decisions "made centrally" but doctors in Norway do have a significant say in how a patient will be treated. There are guidelines, but its not system where disease\infection "A" with specific symptoms "B" and "C" must be treated in a government approved way (like looking it up in a manual). The doctors are involved and make decisions on treatment.
I only say this because universal health care is a touchy subject in the States currently and I have heard arguments stating that the "government" not your doctor will be making decisions while referring to systems in other countries, this is not true imo.
Ironically for Americans that are lucky enough to have health insurance they are willing to trust their health care to a private insurance company that is looking to turn a profit. I would trust my health to the government over a private business worried about their bottom line anyhow... But that is another discussion.
I completely disagree. The FDA is not some magical organization that can predict every single possible negative consequence of every single drug ever sent to their offices. If a drug slipped by that happens to cause severe problems in some patients 10 years down the road, then they should be able to sue someone. Everyone may have been as careful as possible, but there was still something overlooked, or some mistake made, and that has consequences.
If it was proven that the drugs companies were knew about this possibility and did not reveal it then yes they should be held responsible. On the other hand if a drugs company did everything realistically possible, given the tools available at the time to ensure the limits of side effects or documented everything then they should be protected. I say this because drugs companies aren't gods and are trying to find the best solution they can for a system they don't fully understand. When being prescribed medicine there is a risk factor that needs to be taken into account: are the side effects better than not taking the medicine at all?
If you expect drugs companies to make perfect medicine, then I ask you to reverse engineer an OS for a known issue with the absence of the creator's documentation (no MFC docs, no Linux docs etc), and then guarantee your patch will be perfect.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.