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."
Dissapointing (Score:4, Funny)
I was hoping this would be just the ticket for helping me with my cross-border baby-smuggling operation. But the thing's transparent, kinda defeating the whole purpose of "smuggling", and it's huge but can only carry one baby!
I'm sticking with my REI-brand frame backpack for baby smuggling. Swing and a miss, CSU. Swing and a miss.
Usually not a good idea..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it's 2010. We don't call them 'third world countries' anymore. We call them 'developing nations'. The former is so Cold War...
Re:Usually not a good idea..... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Usually not a good idea..... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzt, wrong. When all definitions are equal, including that of INFANT, we have the lowest infant mortality rate of 1st world countries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[Citation Needed]
CIA World Factbook and UN Stats [wikipedia.org] 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.
Not quite correct (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if the difference is a matter of reporting bias/standards, that's very good news. I'm guessing you don't have that data up on a public facing wiki or anything, so I won't say [citation needed]. I'm curious though that if only 40% of fetal deaths in Norway would be counted as infant mortality in the U.S., that means some deaths aren't counted as such, and I'm wondering what the difference is and what the criterion is.
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't. Are infant mortality is lower then pretty much an other country. It has been on the decline from high risk mothers doing home delivery. Even that isn't really a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't. Are infant mortality is lower then pretty much an other country.
Except the 30 others that are lower. The best ones have half the mortality rate that we do.
Our numbers are not bad in an absolute or historical sense. But it's sad because we could be doing much better.
So sad we should completely forget about helping the countries in the world who have it much, much worse? No way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a false dichotomy. We can improve the infant mortality rates in the USA and help infants in 3rd world countries. The skills required are different. In this country we need improved hospital standards, better doctor training, increased access to prenatal care, and better education and care for expectant mothers in general. In Brazil they need plastic backpacks with incubators. These guys had the skills and the ideas to do the later, but not the ability to do the former, so they did what they cou
Tiny problem... (Score:1, Troll)
How do you get it there in the first place?
Drop them out of an airplane as a preventive measure, say... 15 of those per square kilometer?
This is utter nonsense.
If you can get a doctor to the mother, you can move the baby as well. No need for backpacking.
Unless the doctor has to get there over the remnants of a suspension bridge. And in that case, he/she is not going back the same way with the incubator on the back anyway.
Oh... wait... this should be used if the doctor suspects, based on the ultrasound, that
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the major cities in South America are actually pretty nice, as are most of the smaller ones. As an American, I wouldn't mind living and working down there. The "hellhole" parts aren't much worse than the Gulf Coast in the US. Except maybe Rio. For a population of 6 million, half of that lives in abject poverty on a scale that's almost Darfur-scale depressing.
Paraguay/Rural Bolivia, Suriname and the Guyanas I have not visited and from what I understand they are about as poor and lacking of in
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of truth in what you're saying about "kangaroo care" or skin-to-skin contact for newborns. It seems to be the norm just about everywhere but modern delivery rooms to place the newly arrived immediately in the mother's arms. And the average healthy newborn is a pretty hardy being, well able to cope (with help) with a lot of what's going on outside. I also know that some really stressed-out or very early preemies can't handle a lot of contact. It's too bad they can't somehow adapt the traditiona
Re: (Score:2)
We've discussed this problem in OEC (Outdoor Emergency Care) training - how to safely deliver and transport newborn infants in hostile environments. This is REALLY GREAT!
Under some circumstances, yes. But this is not meant for those times when you can tuck the preemie into your clothing while you walk a few hundred feet to the helicopter or ambulanc
Re: (Score:2)
For some states out there, 'developing nation' is an accurate description of the place. In others, 'developing nation' is indeed a euphemism for 'backwards hellhole', and I think that 'third world' conjures up the proper mental imagery in a more polite manner.
Meanings change, and without any sort of controlling body for the English language, a term means what it is commonly und
Re: (Score:1)
> them 'developing nations'. The former is so Cold War...
The latter is a cruel joke. I know it's considered (in the Western world) to be politically correct, but for the life of me I can't figure out why. It's much more condescending, more insulting, laced with sarcastic implications. The worst part is the bitter irony: if a country starts *actually* developing to any meaningful extent (like, say, South Korea) people quickly stop calling
What bothers me is the 'and filed a patent for'... (Score:4, Insightful)
While this seems like a great idea for helping babies (I'm not a doctor), why can't they just publish the idea so everyone can benefit instead of just the cities / villages / towns / areas / families / whatever that can afford to buy one? The patent part is all about making money. At the expense of dying children. No different than drug companies (and many others) in my eyes. Although I do have to say that when I was their (apparent) age, I wanted to be filthy rich and didn't see anything wrong with that. Now that I'm (supposedly) more mature (and much older), I see things like this and wonder why can't people just do some things for the good of mankind? No I'm not naive, I just don't understand human nature sometimes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What bothers me is the 'and filed a patent for' (Score:4, Insightful)
they do it for the good of mankind, so long as mankind has his Health Insuranse Plan card
Why are health care practitioners derided when they want to make a decent living just like the rest of us? The harsh reality is, the only reason your child got such excellent care was because you PAID for it (ok, the insurance paid, and you pay the premiums, but that's splitting hairs). Without the motivation to earn good money, the medical field would not attract the best and brightest minds, nor would we have the fantastic advances in medical advances that we enjoy now. Sure, there are altruistic folks out there who do wonderful work, but there's no way we could care for everyone without the support of a well-financed medical industry like we have now.
Besides, by law, no one is supposed to be denied emergency medical care in the US [wikipedia.org]. Hospitals simply absorb the cost (well, in reality, they pass the cost onto paying customers) of uninsured patients who can't afford treatment. Incidentally, it's reported now that 55% of emergency care is uncompensated. [acep.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because you charge crazy high rates?
Any reason why a doctor makes so much more than a phd?
We honestly need to commoditize health care and offer medical school free to qualifying students. Let surplus labor drive down costs.
Re:What bothers me is the 'and filed a patent for' (Score:4, Interesting)
People are willing to pay more dollars more often to have the health or life of a loved one saved than they are to listen to some boring self important blowhard dipshit.
_I_ don't need to do anything. There are already lots of ways _you_ can provide scholarships for qualified students to become doctors. Why aren't you?
There are several things that make health care very expensive in this country:
1) nobody knows what it costs, so they never comparison shop on price; they rarely refuse service because of costs. Thus, there is no incentive to control costs. There is no market, so to speak.
2) not everybody pays, but everybody receives. That uncompensated care is paid for _somehow_
3) Doctors have their labor union legally protected by law everywhere in the US. Want to be a doctor? All the other doctors in the US get to decide that they're willing to tolerate some competition before you're allowed to practice medicine here.
Breaking the union stranglehold on who can practice medicine, and not requiring care providers to render care regardless of ability to pay would make medicine very affordable. The first would probably allow some people to receive lower quality care some of the time. It would also allow some people to receive higher quality care some of the time. I bet it's a net positive for both care and affordability [since providers would compete on reputation instead of on union membership].
You would think that the latter -- removing the legal obligation to provide care -- would mean that many people would immediately start going without care, but I don't think this is the case. In the not-so-distant past, people and doctors managed to work out payment plans and there weren't epidemic die-offs due to inability to acquire "insurance".
Essentially, the high cost of care is due to collusion between government and insurers. Remove the government involvement, and things get better.
Of course, that's not the direction people are trying to take things...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because this isn't something you can just slap together. Sometimes you need financial backing and sometimes you need someone with manufacturing expertise. Like it or not, this is how the world works. I'm fairly certain if every little bit of technology we just given away, for the "good" of the people, we wouldn't have half the resources we have available today,
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not advocating that 'all' inventions / improvements should be 'given away'. It just seems like some things should be done for the good of mankind. I do believe that patents play a role in helping innovation when someone thinks they can make money from something. But that being said, as pointed out on /. so many times in the past, people / corporations abuse the patent process for monetary gain.
I guess what would be nice is to occasionally hear a story about someone who does invent something, and then
Re:What bothers me is the 'and filed a patent for' (Score:4, Insightful)
Because here's a bitter reality: a whole bunch of people worked on this thing for a long time - months, or even years, to make it happen. If you want to appeal to emotion ("at the expense of dying children") - I'll do the same - these people quite likely have children who will be homeless and possibly starve if their parents are putting months or years worth of work only to have it given away "for the good of mankind".
Now if you want to suggest that a government or generous charity should buy it then that's fine, but you can't expect people to starve because the work they have done happens to benefit the needy, because I can tell you the immediate result of that: people won't bother with working on this sort of thing anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Very well said. Here's hoping the GP takes what you've said to heart and learns from it. But, sadly, if he's "much older" and still hopelessly naive, he probably won't.
Re: (Score:2)
The classic Zorg v. Vito debate.
Re: (Score:2)
While this seems like a great idea for helping babies (I'm not a doctor), why can't they just publish the idea so everyone can benefit instead of just the cities / villages / towns / areas / families / whatever that can afford to buy one? The patent part is all about making money. At the expense of dying children.
Did you RTFA?
They're not building a centrifuge out of salad spinners.
Here's an incomplete list of features they've included:
"an electric heating system, air circulation, an air controller, various alarms that monitor the baby's temperature, etc."
Now look at this picture [inhabitots.com] and tell me that it seems like something you can jury rig in a developing country.
P.S. An appeal to emotion isn't actually an argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't you seen Idiocracy? It just doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Poverty and ignorance go together, though it is terribly unfashionable to point this out. Religion keeps them from using birth control or abortion, so the trash reproduce abundantly. That reproduction reinforces all their other problems.
I despise such folk, and will do nothing to help them. That's their problem. Have some Pope (or Mullah, or whatever scornworthy shit they believe), increase fruitfully, and multiply.
Re: (Score:2)
You could help them be less ignorant.
Seriously, the better educated people are the better the world is. The better it is for you. DO you think not getting them out of ignorance is likely to get them to realize they need to stop having babies?
I won't point out the irony of a post like your from someone call couchslug.
Your ancestors also believed in goofy crap, yet through the generations you live a better life. Something that woudn't have happened if people besides you didn't take steps to make education a
Hmfff ... (Score:2)
And there was me thinking a house of learning and innovation was actually making a positive contribution to the infant mortality rate.
Then I saw the magic words "and filed a patent for", and realised like everything else, it's all about the money. Whatever happened to altruism ?
Re:Hmfff ... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the invention is documented to have occurred before the patent is filed, the patent can be squashed - but that takes an expensive lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's technically possible to overturn a patent, but an altruist would have to go through a lot of effort and a massive amount of money to gain access to their own invention only to give it away.
If you invent something, patent it immediately, whether you intend to profit from it or not. If you choose to freely share the invention, fine, at least with a patent on file you won't get some troll who jumps claim on you and starts barring you from using your own invention.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If altruism is so important to you, buy their patent and release it to the public domain. Or get off your ass and develop a better alternative.
I'm probably more liberal than most, but I don't get why some people think inventions helping poor or deprived people should simply be given away by the developer/inventor. Developers and inventors have to eat, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Developers and inventors have to eat too ... perhaps, but this is a University we are talking about, where students go to learn. Apparently the first they must learn is how to profit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reduce Infant Deaths... (Score:2)
...and bust ghosts.
backpack (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You could just put it on the baby's back. They don't have the necessary dexterity to take it off.
I'd be curious to get a medical opinion on this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is poor people are too stupid to learn how to operate a machine?
Re: (Score:2)
High tech machines generally, and medical apparatus is particularly bad, tend to rely on a huge web of interlocking suppliers, substantial amounts of human and physical cap
Wouldn't this device just make the problem worse? (Score:1)
Survival of the not-so-fittest... (Score:1, Troll)
So these dreadfully ill newborns born to people too poor to take care of themselves in the prenatal period, or just cursed with bad genes, will survive.
They will survive with increased risks of disease and deformity, bringing an emotional and financial burden upon their already overstretched parents, in a society with few social resources to care for them.
And then their living older siblings will suffer from decreased parental attention, relationships will be put under strain, and only a few of them will ac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same could be said for you.
is the life you lead after you turn 40 really going to be productive enough to warrant the cost to develop the technologies that let you live that long?
After your 60? 80?
You should live bu your post and go jump off a tall bridge.
Re: (Score:1)
So what are you worried about then? "Ill newborns born to people too poor (...) or just cursed with bad genes" may survive, but certainly will not procreate, and therefore those "bad genes" will be excluded from the human genetic pool. If their parents are so overstretched that they can't handle their spawn, their reproductive fitness will certainly be lowered. A society that can't ensure the survival of its members, will eventually be replaced by a fitter society. Why do you think that outcome is worse? Na