Dealing with heart surgery, disease and ailments is very hard. The hardness comes to the people who care the most. The individual, if they are old or young enough to remember, has to go through a traumatic experience that will most likely change the rest of their life. The people who love the individual have many sets of characteristics depending upon the relationship.
A mother sitting on the beach is one way that I like to start this short but inspirational story. She is sitting there on a beach with her friend. The wind is blowing off the sea. A wine bottle is open. Glasses are filled for conversation to ensue. The mother asks the friend how she is supposed to deal with everything going on. She has to plan her second childs funeral before he has even had a chance to grow.
The pain that is understood by this mother could teach people wisdom through many centuries. The father is in no better shape. He wishes to be there to hold his son just a few times before he goes into the spirit world whatever he may believe. Having to work and having family all around seem almost endless as he thought about this young three-week old child that now has to go into surgery.
Touch and go move through the family. It is amazing how tragedy brings people together more often than not. This makes me believe in humanity. Each person that even just reached out with a word of kindness to that mother must be destined to be a good person if they so choose.
A hand to share, hugs to pass around and a glass of wine if need be. The best cure to going through a series of heart issues as this family has suffered is to open up. Talk to people and let them know how you feel. Most people will listen and sometimes that is all we need. Those that have family members and friends that are going through any form of tragedy just need to lend an ear to comfort.
That family is my family. I was the three-week old infant to go into open heart surgery for congenital heart failure. It is a staple in my life that has always allowed me to be so self motivated. The doctors had told my parents I would not exist in this plane of existence without many health problems. I grew.
My mind grew. My body grew. My heart grew. Hold hope and even if such a tragedy as it goes the other way find people who will listen. Do not lose yourself in the depths of sadness. Stand up and move on. This is what I would have wanted for my parents if things had gone badly and I truly believe they would have because they are very strong people.
An obstetrician, a doula, and a television newscaster debate new government health guidelines in the United Kingdom which state that “home births and midwife-led centres were better for mothers and often as safe for babies.”
The doctor says the guidelines reflect the latest evidence from the government agency, NICE.
The doula emphasizes the evidence basis for the recommendations and applauds women having more options regarding their place of birth.
The newscaster tells how his wife wanted a home birth but he insisted on having the birth in the hospital, and his child almost died during that birth from his shoulder getting stuck in the birth canal. He is adamant that his child lived because he was born in the hospital, close to medical care which handled the unexpected emergency, and asserts that home birth is too risky to offer as a choice in favor of a “positive experience.”
How can medical authorities make recommendations that say births with midwives are as safe as births with doctors? Or, that births out-of-hospital, either at home or in birth centers, are safe when there are so many stories about how a mother or a baby died, or almost died, even in the hospital? It seems almost impossible to reconcile these truths. The problem is that one cannot debate birth safety on a case-by-case basis.
Public Health uses the study of populations and trends through research to understand what causes illness and what enhances health. Researchers look at large numbers of cases to better understand how the majority in a group of people will respond to certain interventions in certain circumstances. The new guidelines in the United Kingdom are based on evidence that shows most women with healthy pregnancies will have safe births and fewer interventions if they give birth outside of the hospital with midwives as their attendants, and most of their babies will be fine being born in planned out-of-hospital settings. First-time mothers and their babies are at slightly higher risk of adverse outcomes, meaning the baby being unhealthy at birth or dying, so those women should be made aware of the increased risk to allow them to make an informed decision about where they choose to give birth.
Individual birth stories are one-of-a-kind. Each one is unique because of the expectations, attitudes, life experiences, interpersonal relationships, needs, and desires of each person present. What happens at one birth does not necessarily happen at another. Birth is a peak life experience filled with emotion. For every story about a baby or woman who was saved by being in the hospital there is another equally heart-wrenching story about a baby or woman who was traumatized or violated in that same setting.
How does one weigh one person’s loss of a baby that died against the physical and psychological effects on another woman from being forced to endure surgery without her consent? How does one measure the pain of one person against the pain of another? How does one balance the equation of money spent to lives saved or lost? How does a society attend to women with disparate needs and maintain each one’s rights to bodily integrity, autonomy, and choice of place of birth and caregiver, but limit access to care by mandating that hospitals are the only appropriate place to give birth and that doctors are always the best birth care providers because they have surgical training? Some women do need doctors, but for most healthy pregnancies, surgical training is not necessary for good care, but training on how best to support the normal process of birth, such as midwives receive, is. Research shows that having more choices available to answer the varied needs of a diverse population leads to better, but not perfect, outcomes overall.
It is simply not possible to create effective public health policy based on the opinions or experiences of a few individuals. This is exemplified when birth centers close or midwives are punished when one baby dies during a birth in their care, even though dozens or hundreds of other families have benefited from their services. It is tempting to react to the emotions of the personal birth story, but impersonal research numbers provide a clearer picture of what works for larger groups. Research also attempts to eliminate bias, such as the belief that birth must take place in a hospital to be safe, or that mothers and babies don’t die under doctors’ care, which is not true. We must pull back the lens and view the issue from a wider vantage point.
This is not to say that the needs of individuals should be denied in service to the majority. It is a sad fact that a small percentage of mothers and babies will suffer or die from causes related to childbirth, and the healthcare system should both provide services in a compassionate manner to support family members under those circumstances and work to prevent those outcomes in as many cases as possible.
Every one of us is familiar with the word “heart attack,” right? Sometimes it occurs at exertion or sometimes at rest which exhibits one of its risky features – unpredictability. Read the article to find more about heart attacks.
Myocardial infarction or MI (heart attack) occurs due to the irreversible necrosis of the heart tissues which demands immediate attention. An obstruction in the coronary artery followed by the block in blood supply to the heart is the main reason for the death of myocardial tissues. Coronary Heart Disease is one of the root causes of a heart attack and it has been affecting millions of lives across the world.
Atherosclerosis, being the prime reason for creating life-threatening plaque in the coronary arteries shows no symptoms until middle or old age, in the majority of cases.
Treatment of MI is decided based on physical examinations, Electrocardiography (ECG) results and assessment of cardiovascular history. There are two subtypes of heart attacks, diagnosed on the basis of ECG results – ST- Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI). STEMI is the severe kind and demands prompt life saving measures. STEMI develops when the blood supply is completely blocked whereas NSTEMI develops because of a partial block in coronary arteries. ECG findings of STEMI will show an elevated ST-segment and Q-wave formation indicating the transmural infarction of myocardium. Salvage of the jeopardized myocardium by means of reperfusion techniques is the emergency method of treating ST- Elevation Myocardial Infarction, which can be performed through medical or revascularization procedures such as Thrombolysis, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG).
Thrombolytic agents are often preferred for treating STEMI to avoid the risk of complications. However, in some cases, this medical therapy is also performed before the CABG procedure. PCI is another effective and useful reperfusion strategy applied for STEMI patients who have contradictions to thrombolytic therapy. However, stent thrombosis or distal thromboembolism has been raising concerns about the safety and caring of coronary stenting because it leads to a further reduction of myocardial blood flow followed by major adverse cardiovascular events. Advancements in drug-eluting stent technology and interventional procedures promise to offer optimal solutions to eradicate the risk of distal thromboembolism and its adverse effects. To sum it up, we can say that the key to survive from the severe consequences of coronary heart disease and distal thromboembolism are early diagnosis and timely interventions.