The DIY Dialysis Machine 476
Millie Kelly was born with a condition that required an immediate operation. During this operation her kidneys started to fail and since she was too small for dialysis machines, doctors told her parents that she was unlikely to live. Luckily for Millie, Dr. Malcolm Coulthard and a colleague tried to build a much smaller kidney machine on their own and they were successful. Her mother said, "It was a green metal box with a few paint marks on it with quite a few wires coming out of it into my daughter - it didn't look like a normal NHS one." The girl was hooked up to the machine over a seven day period to allow her kidneys to recover. Two years later, her mother Rebecca says she is "fit as a fiddle." You should see what Dr. Coulthard can build using a postage stamp, a tuning fork, a lawn chair and a jellyfish.
too big? (Score:2, Interesting)
Award, and Patant. (Score:5, Interesting)
hereditary (Score:1, Interesting)
So we saved her life. That's good. Because of our advanced medical science, this disease will claim fewer lives.
And she will likely grow up and have kids of her own.
And they will likely have this disease too.
And they will likely need access to practitioners of our advanced medical science to survive.
Before we start talking about Godwin, understand that I believe that racial diversity is necessary in order for the gene pool to remain healthy and adaptive. I am not advocating that we should have let this girl die. I am just pointing out the disturbing consequence of our science combined with our compassion: a species that is genetically weakened and hence increasingly dependent upon the availability of expensive medical caregivers.
I am sure various members of the medical industry love this trend. They are more than happy to provide an expensive service which makes it very likely that one (and one's offspring) will live long enough to continue needing more such expensive services.
And we will pay through the nose for them. It's that or die. And our children will pay for them too...in ever-increasing numbers...because their ancestors chose life-in-debt over natural selection.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
You might be right there that in the US there are obstacles to cutting-edge medicine. At Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, they've been doing cross blood type transplants for years [cbsnews.com] for newborns. At first one would think that it violates a rule of basic organ transplants that the blood types must match. But what they've found is that newborns have not yet developed the antibodies that would cause rejection. The first child to have the operation was 7 as of the report in 2004.
These kinds of transplants were necessary because of the scarcity of donor organs and only performed when there were no other options. First of all, most parents, understandably, do not want to/do not think to donate the organs of their new infant out of grief. Secondly, most newborns die of diseases that might cause them to be eliminated for consideration. Lastly, infants when born are different sizes and their organs also vary in size. Getting a suitable organ that was an exact blood and size match is extremely difficult.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, there would be no standing to sue under the good samaritan laws.
Not true. One of the things they pound into your head when you take a CPR / First Aid course through the Red Cross is that you are covered by the Good Samaritan laws only if you do not accept a reward or compensation for your help. I guarantee the doctor who built the dialysis machine was paid for the effort.
[Citation needed], I think.
From the BBC article, "However, Dr Coulthard, together with senior children's kidney nurse Jean Crosier, devised a smaller version, then built it away from the hospital."
From another article, "A newborn baby was saved from kidney failure after a paediatrician built a dialysis machine for her in his garage."
I wouldn't be surprised if he built the machine in his own time.
Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. (Score:4, Interesting)
What? When a woman is pregnant she is not only carrying a baby, but a very large uterus, enlarged breasts, and probably other stuff that I can't remember. Maybe your wife only gained the baby's weight but that honestly sounds unhealthy for the mom and child as she was net losing weight during the pregnancy due to other things adding necessary mass.
And if you could tell me what minerals and vitamins are in chocolate fudge brownies (my wife's latest craving at 7 and a half months) I'd love to know.
Maybe you have info to back your claims up, but none of this is in line with my current experience.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. It is judged against standard of care. If, as in this case, the standard of care is to wait for the patient to die, then anything that doesn't make things worse could be ok.
On a related note, I worked on a dialysis project. The method was so simple, cheap and easily duplicated (unpatentable), we couldn't figure out how to justify working on it as a company (and we really tried). So we donated the research and a large wad of cash to an outside researcher we had hired as a consultant. He was enthusiastic because he was tired of traditional methods failing his patients (literally telling parents their kids had a week to live). I have no doubt that he would seriously consider using this alternate method rather than watch a patient die, and this is a method far less proven than traditional dialysis. And I firmly believe parents would be eternally grateful for him taking the chance. If this doc ever thought of liability, it was the liability of losing a bit of his soul if he didn't do everything he could for a patient.
Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife, in fact, lost weight when she was pregnant with our first child. After the baby was born, she was 10 pounds lighter than she was before she got pregnant.
Truly, medical geeks are the alpha geeks. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's got to take serious balls to whip something like this up and plug somebody's baby into it, even if the baby was going to die.
Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither my insurance premiums nor healthcare costs have been reduced.
Perhaps because it prevented an increase in premiums? Or it went into preventing a decrease (or an outright increase) in quality of care? (And don't forget about inflation - if your costs didn't rise, then your real cost went down.)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes and no.
Quite often pediatricians are at the mercy of the equipment makers. One of the doctors at the pediatric hospital where I work explained an example: They bought an MRI machine. The machine needs to know the patient weight so that it can make adjustments to energy levels accordingly. The machine as installed refused to allow patient weights under about 6 pounds (3kg). They went back and forth with the manufacture. The manufacturer was like "Who's under 6 pounds?" The hospital was like "We have a level 3 neo-natal intensive care unit. On any given week, we have dozens of patients under six pounds."
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got to be kidding. They spend MORE than we do? I'd got the idea that they put up with having no health service because it meant they could spend more money on, er... I think the term they use is 'defending freedom'. I'd never imagined they spent anything like as much. I mean, the common wisdom in the UK is that the NHS is a colossal money pit. The American system is even more expensive?
Jesus. So, 15% GDP in the US, versus 6% in the UK... and adjust for the higher per capita wealth of the US... that's just horrible. Where the hell is all the money going?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
hm... /me proposes something like a log(uid) modifier
Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. (Score:3, Interesting)
very interesting ! that sounds like something that should be studied more widely
Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. (Score:3, Interesting)