Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Medicine Science

Cheap Incubator Backpack Could Reduce Infant Deaths 76

Boy Wunda writes "In just one six-month period in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2006, 96 newborn babies who were in need of medical care died before they could get help. In many developing nations, these deaths could be prevented simply by providing better ways for medical responders to transport infants properly over rough terrain and keep them alive until they can reach hospitals and clinics. Now, a group of Colorado State University seniors has designed and filed a patent for a medically equipped incubator backpack unit that they believe can reduce baby deaths in medical emergencies both in the United States and in newly industrialized nations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cheap Incubator Backpack Could Reduce Infant Deaths

Comments Filter:
  • by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:11PM (#32268532)

    In a safe, controlled environment, with the necessary medical equipment and personnel available, kangaroo care is probably the way to go. That isn't the use that this device is meant for though. I understood it to be designed for transporting premature infants from remote areas to proper medical care. In other words: difficult hikes, through difficult terrain, in uncomfortably hot weather, with all the bugs, plants, and pollen that comes with it.

  • Re:Hmfff ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by natehoy ( 1608657 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:34PM (#32268872) Journal

    Actually, even altruists frequently file for patents for their inventions, then they simply allow free and unfettered licensing of the product.

    After all, if they don't patent it, someone will. And the control over the invention goes to the first patentholder, not the first inventor.

  • by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:39PM (#32268940) Journal

    I have an idea! Let's ensure that every single child born and/or raised in the USA comes before all the dying jungle babies or fly in the eye africans. Fix our country first, then piss away our taxes on "developing nations" dying jungle babies.

    First of all, you are an asshole and a troll. Second, it was developed by seniors at Colorado State University, not the USAF or a direct " 'merican gubbermint program'. Not every part of the US is equal to Manhattan, so it *might* be useful in remote areas of Alaska or even remote sections of the upper plains states and parts of Canada. But if it isn't, so what. It was a college project by these seniors, and it looks like they came up with an interesting concept that might be useful, or lead to something useful, for someone, somewhere. It is unique enough to be patented, and if it isn't useful, then the market will decide, as no one will further develop or buy them.

    Go ahead and cry about "our country", but wtf have YOU done lately to help infant mortality or the other problems you are bitching about in the USA?

  • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:56PM (#32269166) Homepage

    It's gotten to the point of being grotesque that we citizens of the USA are putting 3rd World (sorry, "developing nations") children ahead of our very own.

    Except we aren't. It's utterly retarded to suggest that the U.S. provides more or better quality care for babies elsewhere in the world than our own.

    So your whole rant is bullshit.

    We do have a very sad infant mortality rate, at least compared to a lot of other 1st World countries. That has nothing to do with the meager amount of support we have given to developing nations.

  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @04:36PM (#32269748)

    [Citation Needed]

    CIA World Factbook and UN Stats [] both disagree with you.

    According to the CIA we're 46th. According to UN "Under-five mortality rate" we're 34th. And UN's "Infant mortality rate" we're 33rd.

    The 3 evil socialist Nordic states all place within the top 5 in both categories.

  • Re:Hmfff ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ShadowRangerRIT ( 1301549 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:38PM (#32270450)
    Actually, in the U.S., we're still using the "first to invent" system, not the "first to file" system. The rest of the world uses first to file, because it's far easier to determine who was the first filer. The U.S. occasionally investigates making the switch (because first to invent disputes cost the courts a lot of time and money), but hasn't done so yet. And since the inventors are in Colorado, they're subject to U.S. law. All they'd need to do to "prove" first to invent is mail themselves a sealed copy of the plans for their invention and they wouldn't need to file if they didn't want to. That said, once they're going public, it's probably better to file, just to avoid the "first to invent" problems I just mentioned.
  • Not quite correct (Score:5, Informative)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:51PM (#32271286) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, except nether of those take in reporting bias.

    For example: In Japan it's not required to report them as infant mortality. Deaths at birth can get labels as fetal mortality. In other countries an infant under a certain weight gets labels as fetal mortality.

    In some countries. for example Norway and Sweden, 40% of all their fetal deaths would have been counted as Infant mortality in the US.

    I Just finished reading up on a ton of research on this issue. Literally. I sent my email of the compiled data and loaded Slashdot. Weird.

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam