More stories

  • in

    The Trump administration is sabotaging your scientific data | Jonathan Gilmour

    United States science has propelled the country into its current position as a powerhouse of biomedical advancements, technological innovation and scientific research. The data US government agencies produce is a crown jewel – it helps us track how the climate is changing, visualize air pollution in our communities, identify challenges to our health and provide a panoply of other essential uses. Climate change, pandemics and novel risks are coming for all of us – whether we bury our heads in the sand or not – and government data is critical to our understanding of the risks these challenges bring and how to address them.Much of this data remains out of sight to those who don’t use it, even though they benefit us all. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has brazenly attacked our scientific establishment through agency firings, censorship and funding cuts, and it has explicitly targeted data the American taxpayers have paid for. They’re stealing from us and putting our health and wellbeing in danger – so now we must advocate for these federal resources.That’s why we at the Public Environmental Data Partners are working to preserve critical environmental data. We are a coalition of non-profits, academic institutions, researchers and volunteers who work with federal data to support policy, research, advocacy and litigation work. We are one node in an expansive web of organizations fighting for the data American taxpayers have funded and that benefits us all. The first phase of our work has been to identify environmental justice tools and datasets at risk through conversations with environmental justice groups, current and former employees in local, state, and federal climate and environment offices, and researchers. To date, we have saved over a hundred priority datasets and have reproduced six tools.We’re not fighting for data for data’s sake; we’re fighting for data because it helps us make sense of the world.The utility of many of these datasets and tools comes from the fact that they are routinely updated. While our efforts ensure that we have snapshots of these critical data sources and tools, it will be a huge loss if these cease to be updated entirely. That’s why we are “life rafting” tools outside of government – standing up copies of them on publicly accessible, non-government pages – hoping that we can return them to a future administration that cares about human and environmental health and does not view science as a threat.The second phase is to develop these tools, advocate for better data infrastructure, and increase public engagement. There’s a question of scope – if the government stops sharing National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration data, we don’t have the resources to start monitoring and tracking hurricanes. For many of these critical data sources, the government is the only entity with the resources to collect and publish this data – think about the thousands of weather stations set up around the world or the global air pollution monitors or the spray of satellites orbiting the earth. On the other hand, we do have the expertise to build environmental justice tools that better serve the communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice, by co-creating with those communities and by building from what we have saved from the government – like the Council on Environmental Quality’s CEJST, the Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice tools.A common refrain of the saboteurs is that if these functions that they are targeting are important enough, the states or the private sector will step in to fill the gap. While some of these functions of the federal government are replicable outside of government, privatization will render them less accessible, more expensive and subject to the whims of the markets. The states can also step in and fill some gaps – but many of the biggest challenges that we’re facing are best tackled by a strong federal government. Furthermore, many states are happily joining this anti-science crusade. The climate crisis and pandemics don’t stop politely at state borders. If data collection is left up to the states, the next pandemic will not leave a state untouched because it dismantled its public health department – but such actions will leave a gaping hole in our understanding of the risks to the residents of that state and its neighbors. What’s more, some states do not have the resources to stand up the infrastructure required to shoulder the burden of data collection. Coordination between federal and state governments is essential.Data is being stolen from us; our ability to understand the world is being stolen from us. Americans will die because the Trump administration is abdicating its responsibility to the people – this censorship regime will have dire consequences. That’s why we must stand up for science, we must be loud about the importance of federal data and we must put the brakes on Trump’s un-American agenda.

    Jonathan Gilmour is a data scientist at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health, a fellow at the Aspen Policy Academy, and coordinator at the Public Environmental Data Partners. More

  • in

    Outrage as Trump’s coal expansion coupled with health cuts: ‘There won’t be anyone to work in the mines’

    The Trump administration’s efforts to expand coal mining while simultaneously imposing deep cuts to agencies tasked with ensuring miner health and safety has left some advocates “dumbfounded”.Agencies that protect coal miners from serious occupational hazards, including the condition best known as “black lung”, have been among those affected by major government cuts imposed by the White House and the unofficial “department of government efficiency” (Doge) run by the billionaire Elon Musk.“The [Mine Workers of America] is thrilled they’re looking at the future of coal,” said Erin Bates, a spokesperson for the United Mine Workers of America, about a series of executive orders signed by the president to expand coal mining. “But – if you’re not going to protect the health and safety of the miners, there’s not going to be anyone to work in the mines you are apparently reopening.”Last week, Trump signed a raft of measures he said would expand coal mining in the US in order to feed the energy demands of hungry datacenters that power artificial intelligence software.“All those plants that have been closed are going to be opened if they’re modern enough, or they’ll be ripped down and brand new ones will be built,” Trump told a crowd of lawmakers, workers and executives at the White House while signing the order. “We’re going to put the miners back to work.”The coal industry has shrunk precipitously in recent years, and now represents only about 15% of the power generated for the US electrical grid. Natural gas, wind and solar have proved to have a competitive advantage over coal, contributing to its decline, because plants are cheaper to operate, according to Inside Climate News.Even as coal mining has shrunk, the potential dangers for people who still work in the field remains high. Pneumoconiosis is among the best known occupational hazards faced by coal miners, but is far from the only risk they face – others include roof collapse, hearing loss and lung cancer, to name a few.Trump’s push for coal came less than a week after the health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, imposed a 10,000-person cut to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Cuts overseen by Kennedy, alongside those imposed by Musk’s unofficial Doge, represented the elimination of almost a quarter of HHS’s 82,000-person workforce.Nearly 900 of those workers were dismissed from the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), including in the agency’s respiratory health division in West Virginia, which specifically oversaw an X-ray screening program for black lung. Doge has also pursued cuts to mine safety by eliminating 34 regional offices of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in 19 states.The deep cuts especially worried those intimately familiar with the suffering caused by pneumoconiosis – such as Greg Wagner, a doctor and former senior adviser at the NIOSH.“My thoughts were, ‘Why NIOSH? Why now?’” said Wagner, whose early work at a community clinic in a small West Virginia coal mining town led him to a career working to prevent the disease at both NIOSH and as assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health.Wagner also worked with the International Labor Organization and multiple countries in an effort to eliminate pneumoconiosis globally. He is now a professor of environmental health at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health.The cuts “gutted” NIOSH, said Wagner, even as agency experts were “doing what they were asked to do and doing it extraordinarily well … Over-performing with little recognition. And to see that appear to be going up in smoke – I just – obviously my feelings were profound and complex.”The administration also wants to pause a new rule on silica dust – a kind of pneumoconiosis or “black lung” disease that is increasingly striking younger miners in Appalachia, as workers dig for harder-to-reach veins of coal.“To go into the silica rule – we’re almost dumbfounded,” Bates said. “The number of black lung cases that are showing up in the US is astronomical – it is increasing and not only are the numbers increasing, but it’s happening to younger and younger miners. Every single day this rule is delayed is another day our miners are contracting black lung.”Silicosis is a disease caused by inhaling silica dust, a form of pneumoconiosis that can be even more severe than the black lung of a century ago, and which has long been known to harm the health of coal miners.The government has been aware of the dangers of silica dust for decades, recommending dramatic reductions in exposure levels as early as 1974. In 1993, Wagner’s boss at NIOSH, Dr J Donald Millar, described the persistence of silicosis as “an occupational obscenity because there is no scientific excuse for its persistence”.The MSHA finalized a rule in April 2024 reducing silica dust exposure in mines, which was set to go into effect this year. Last week, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association filed a suit seeking to pause enforcement of the silica dust rule pending a lawsuit. Days later, federal mine regulators told the court they wanted to pause enforcement of the silica dust rule for coal mining operations by four months, delaying any enforcement actions until August 2025.“The sudden shift in litigation position signaled by MSHA’s ‘enforcement pause’, and by its unilateral proposal to hold this case in abeyance for a period of four months is a clarion call to this nation’s miners that the agency charged with the profound responsibility of protecting their health and safety is losing the stomach for the fight to vindicate its own rule,” attorneys for mine and steel unions wrote, seeking to intervene in the case.Wagner said his concerns about delay of the silica rule extended beyond miners into workers in other industries – including people who work sand blasting or carving engineered stone countertops, all known to be environments where workers can be exposed to potentially harmful levels of silica dust.“I don’t have the right words,” said Wagner about the cuts to NIOSH, which was deeply involved in research that showed how silica dust harmed miners. “I feel like it was just done without thought, done without consideration and the consequences of the loss of the agency i think will be felt for years.“We will need to try to rebuild what NIOSH has been doing.” More

  • in

    Trump is ‘fully fit’ and manages high cholesterol, says White House physician

    Donald Trump – the oldest person to ever be elected US president – controls high cholesterol with medication and has elevated blood pressure but is “fully fit”, White House physician Sean Barbella said in a report released on Sunday.The US navy captain’s report was published two days after Trump underwent a routine physical. It also said he was up to date on all recommended vaccines – despite his national health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr having spent years sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccination.Trump himself has previously spread debunked claims about links between vaccines and autism often invoked by Kennedy.Barbella’s report is the most detailed information on the health of Trump, 78, since he returned to the White House in January for a second presidency.“President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State,” Barbella wrote in his report.The report noted that Trump’s high cholesterol is “well-controlled” with two medications addressing it.The medicines are rosuvastatin and ezetimibe, generic names of the branded drugs Crestor and Zetia. They have improved Trump’s cholesterol over time.Ideally, total cholesterol should be less than 200. At his physical in January 2018, his total cholesterol was 223. In early 2019, the reading came in at 196 and it stood at 167 in 2020. In Sunday’s report, it was listed as 140.Trump’s blood pressure was 128 over 74. That is considered elevated. And people with elevated blood pressure are likely to develop high blood pressure – or hypertension – unless they take steps to control the condition.The report also noted that Trump has scarring on his right ear, the result of a gunshot wound he suffered when a would-be assassin fired at him during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania last year.A secret service sniper killed the attacker, who fatally shot one spectator while wounding two others.Barbella’s report also references Trump’s history with Covid-19. Trump was hospitalized during a serious bout with the virus in October 2020 during a run for re-election that ended in defeat to Joe Biden.Amid questions about his age and mental acuity, Biden then dropped out of an electoral rematch with Trump in November 2024 and endorsed his vice-president, Kamala Harris, to succeed him. Trump won the popular and electoral votes against Harris to return to the presidency.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAfter the exam preceding the report, Trump told journalists on Air Force One: “It went, I think, well … Every test you can imagine, I was there for a long time, the yearly physical.“I think I did well.”Trump also told reporters he took a cognitive test. Barbella’s report gave Trump a 30 out of 30 on what is known as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.The screening takes about 10 minutes to administer, according to information online. One version available online asks those undergoing the screening to draw a clock, repeat words, name animals and count backwards from 100 at intervals of seven, among other tasks.Trump’s resting heart rate was 62 beats per minute, in line with previous tests. A normal resting heart rate for adults ranges from 60 beats to 100 beats per minute. And generally, a lower rate implies better cardiovascular fitness.Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

  • in

    ‘We are failing’: doctors and students in the US look to Mexico for basic abortion training

    On paper, it should not be difficult for Dr Sebastian Ramos to learn to perform abortions. As a family medicine doctor, Ramos works in a specialty that frequently provides the procedure. He lives in deep-blue California, where it is still allowed. And the administrators running Ramos’s residency program – a kind of apprenticeship that US doctors must undergo to become full-fledged physicians – support Ramos’s desire to learn how to do it.But over the course of his three-year-long residency, Ramos is guaranteed just three days’ worth of training at Planned Parenthood. Residents get to participate in only a handful of abortions.“That’s just not enough if you want to practice abortion care,” said Ramos, who asked to go by a shortened version of his last name to protect his privacy. “I knew that if I wanted to do this, I needed more experience.”That’s why, earlier this month, Ramos traveled to a clinic in Mexico City for two weeks’ worth of training in abortion provision. During his first week at the clinic, which is run by the global organization MSI Reproductive Choices and its Mexican arm Fundación MSI, Ramos performed roughly 60 abortions.In the years since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, paving the way for more than a dozen states to ban virtually all abortions, a small but growing number of would-be abortion providers have begun to leave the country in search of an education. In 2023, MSI trained nine American doctors to perform abortions at clinics in Mexico. In 2024, it trained 27. So far this year, it is on track to double that number.View image in fullscreen“On one hand, it’s a tremendous relief to know that medical students and residents aren’t going to have to forego this very important part of their training in their education,” said Pamela Merritt, executive director of Medical Students for Choice. Last year, Merritt’s organization helped eight medical students and residents receive abortion training in Mexico and the UK.Merritt continued: “It’s also incredibly sad that in the United States, we are failing to train people even to the standard of care indicated by abortion bans.”Every abortion ban in the US permits abortions to save a patient’s life. But without adequate training, doctors may not be skilled enough to perform abortions even in those dire circumstances.‘It’s a shame’Medical schools and residency programs are run by massive hospitals that are heavily dependent on public funding; such institutions tend to be, by nature, leery of anything as controversial as abortion. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has required OB-GYN residencies to teach doctors how to perform abortions since the 1990s, but rather than offer training in-house, hospitals have often farmed their residents out to freestanding abortion clinics for training.Even before Roe fell, this system was faulty: a 2019 study found that, despite the ACGME requirement, just 64% of OB-GYN residency programs offered “routine training with dedicated time” for abortions. Family medicine residents who want to learn to perform abortions face a greater disadvantage, since the ACGME does not require their residency programs to offer any kind of abortion training.View image in fullscreenEven most OB-GYN residents, program directors reported in the 2019 study, did not achieve what doctors call “competency” when it came to abortion. Without competency – a qualification that’s measured through a melange of doctors’ knowledge, skills and attitudes – doctors may not be able to safely perform abortions on their own.Abortion training and competency is now even harder to come by. Since Roe’s collapse, more than 100 abortion clinics have closed. Those that are left are often besieged by patients fleeing abortion bans, leaving them without the time and space to teach everybody who wants to learn.If an OB-GYN residency program is located in a state that bans abortion, ACGME rules currently dictate that the residency “must provide access to this clinical experience in a different jurisdiction where it is lawful”. The ACGME declined to respond to a request for information about how many residency programs are currently compliant with its abortion-training requirement, although records show that no OB-GYN programs have lost their accreditation status in the last year. Patricia Lohr serves as the director of research and innovation for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas), a UK non-profit that provides abortions up until about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Lohr trained to become an OB-GYN in the US. “Having been a resident and a medical student in the United States, I could really see the importance of having access to abortion education that wasn’t entirely reliant on what was being delivered within academic training programs,” Lohr said. “Because often, abortions weren’t being provided in those academic hospitals.”View image in fullscreenWhen Lohr moved to the UK, she quickly moved to create a two-week training program at Bpas where medical students could learn about abortions and observe – but not perform – the procedure. In the years since Roe fell, that training program has received a surge of applications from American medical students and residents.“It’s a shame that people would have to travel to learn a basic part of women’s health care,” Lohr said. “There are many trainees out there at the moment who would like to obtain abortion skills, but cannot get it locally, and so they get diverted into doing something else.”Lauren Wiener, a New Jersey medical student, had originally planned to travel to Arizona in summer 2022 to learn how to provide abortions. But when Roe’s fall led Arizona abortion providers to temporarily stop working, Wiener had to cancel her trip. Instead, she ended up undergoing a week-long training at Bpas last fall.“It is something that you need to know how to do, because there are emergency situations,” Wiener said of abortions. “You might not want to electively perform an abortion at 24 weeks, but if someone comes in and they’re miscarrying, you need to know how to evacuate that uterus. It’s a skill you need to have to save a life.”‘We will be there’While training in the US dwindles, the country’s increasingly conservative approach to abortion has also put it at odds with much of the rest of the world. Only four countries – including the US – have tightened their abortion laws over the last 30 years, while more than 60 countries and territories have loosened theirs, according to a tally by the Center for Reproductive Rights.Mexico is one of them. In 2023, its supreme court decriminalized abortion nationwide; the procedure is now available in about half of all Mexican states. And providers aren’t the only people taking advantage of Mexico’s liberalized abortion laws: last year, Fundación MSI provided first-trimester abortions to 62 women from the United States.“Training, training, training – it is key, to have less danger for actual patients,” said Araceli López-Nava, managing director of MSI Latin America. “We understand how difficult the situation is becoming in the US, so we’re happy to help.”The organization has the capacity to train up to 300 doctors a year to perform abortions, López-Nava estimated.View image in fullscreenMSI is not, however, a solution for everybody. Would-be trainees need to speak Spanish. And although the organization has in past years trained medical students, MSI’s Mexico clinics have started focusing on teaching residents who have already performed 20 abortions. Because residents have already chosen their specialties and secured berths in residency programs – which can be highly competitive – they are more likely to become abortion providers.Training in Mexico can also be pricey, especially since the program does not pay for travel and lodging. Ramos’s entire trip cost about $5,000, although a scholarship helped him cover most of the costs.“It’s a way, at least for me, to be exposed to a different medical system, learn from different providers from a different country, exchange knowledge,” Ramos said. “I feel like I’m being adequately prepared to meet the needs of my patients in the US.” More

  • in

    NHS medicines could be at risk due to Trump tariffs and global trade friction, ministers warned

    The availability of around 85 per cent of NHS medicines could be at risk unless the UK government strengthens its supply chains to prepare for worsening geopolitical tensions, ministers have been warned.Manufacturers in Britain have urged the government to treat it as a defence issue, with the supply of drugs such as antibiotics under threat if global tensions continue to rise as a result of Donald Trump’s decision to impose hefty tariffs across the world.If pharmaceutical and medical suppliers are hit by the US-led tariff war, the NHS could have to pay more for medicines, another expert has said.The warnings come after health secretary Wes Streeting said UK medicines supplies could be impacted by the tariffs imposed on trade by President Trump.Mr Streeting said during an interview on Sky News that there are a “number of factors at play” when it comes to the UK’s supply of medicines, including manufacturing and distribution challenges, and he warned that tariffs pose “another layer of challenge”.The health secretary was responding after the US president said he was not looking to pause the sweeping tariffs that have plunged global markets into turmoil. Although the US tariffs have so far exempted the pharmaceutical industry, some medical devices and equipment are affected, so UK manufacturers would still be hit by 10 and 20 per cent tariffs when exporting to the US.Some companies which rely heavily on exports to the US are likely to consider moving their manufacturing from the UK to America, according to RBC analysts quoted in Endpoints News, which could push prices higher for Britons. The UK also imports £4.5bn in medical products from the US, where companies may raise prices due to tariffs on imported raw materials.Health secretary Wes Streeting said ministers are watching the situation ‘extremely closely’ More

  • in

    Global trade friction sparked by Trump tariffs could put 85% of NHS medicines at risk, ministers warned

    The availability of around 85 per cent of NHS medicines could be at risk unless the UK government strengthens its supply chains to prepare for worsening geopolitical tensions, ministers have been warned.Manufacturers in Britain have urged the government to treat it as a defence issue, with the supply of drugs such as antibiotics under threat if global tensions continue to rise as a result of Donald Trump’s decision to impose hefty tariffs across the world.If pharmaceutical and medical suppliers are hit by the US-led tariff war, the NHS could have to pay more for medicines, another expert has said.The warnings come after health secretary Wes Streeting said UK medicines supplies could be impacted by the tariffs imposed on trade by President Trump.Mr Streeting said during an interview on Sky News that there are a “number of factors at play” when it comes to the UK’s supply of medicines, including manufacturing and distribution challenges, and he warned that tariffs pose “another layer of challenge”.The health secretary was responding after the US president said he was not looking to pause the sweeping tariffs that have plunged global markets into turmoil. Although the US tariffs have so far exempted the pharmaceutical industry, some medical devices and equipment are affected, so UK manufacturers would still be hit by 10 and 20 per cent tariffs when exporting to the US.Some companies which rely heavily on exports to the US are likely to consider moving their manufacturing from the UK to America, according to RBC analysts quoted in Endpoints News, which could push prices higher for Britons. The UK also imports £4.5bn in medical products from the US, where companies may raise prices due to tariffs on imported raw materials.Health secretary Wes Streeting said ministers are watching the situation ‘extremely closely’ More

  • in

    Voices: ‘I no longer recognise it’: Former staff and patients share experiences of the NHS

    Public dissatisfaction with the NHS has reached record levels, sparking a passionate debate about the future of healthcare in the UK and what patients can reasonably expect from the service.When we asked for your views, many Independent readers shared deeply personal and often distressing experiences of being let down by an overstretched and under-resourced system. Common themes included poor access to GPs, long waits for hospital care, and essential services being cut without adequate communication. Some described surgeries reduced to little more than dispensaries, and a growing burden of travel for even the most routine care.Others highlighted serious breakdowns in communication between hospitals and GPs, outdated technology, and a bureaucratic rigidity that fails to reflect individual needs. There were also moving testimonies from people who received timely, life-saving care and praised the professionalism and compassion of NHS staff – even under immense pressure.But despite widespread frustration, most contributors expressed continued support for the founding principles of the NHS. Many agreed that the current problems stem not from the frontline workers, but from years of political neglect, underfunding, and systemic mismanagement.Here’s what you had to say:My local surgery is now just a glorified pharmacyI live in rural Devon and my local GP service is part of a medical group 14 miles away. My surgery (½ a mile away) only has a GP there two days a week, and mostly you are told to go to the “main” surgery, which is a 28-mile round trip, and there is no bus to it. There are 20 GPs on the medical group’s website and I have never met or spoken to any of them. Now they are refusing to do hospital-ordered blood tests at either surgery, so this means I have the “choice” of going somewhere else between 28–78 miles round trip for blood tests that I will need regularly for the rest of my life.My local surgery is now just a glorified pharmacy. You cannot get an appointment for weeks or even months. You used to go into the surgery and there would be a queue and people waiting to be seen, but now it’s like a ghost town. I have no choice but to be registered at this surgery as it is the only one I am in the catchment area for, but I want as little as possible to do with them after the way they have treated people like me needing blood tests. Callous disregard – that is all I receive from this surgery. As my conditions worsen and I get older, my world gets smaller, and yet I am expected to travel further and further for services that I should get in my own town.ValBI’ve been waiting over a year for sleep study results and a diagnosis. I have pain and chronic fatigue. I will be moving to another area in June and I’m not sure if I’ll have to start the process again. I feel I’ll be dead before I get seen!Mx5I cannot fault the treatment I receivedLast summer I fell over a pothole whilst crossing the road and seriously fractured my wrist. The irony is that although the state of the road was appalling, the treatment I received from the NHS was second to none. I was in an ambulance within 10 minutes, had major restorative surgery the next day and was home after 3 days. (The stay on the ward was another matter with too few staff having to deal with dementia patients who could not be discharged. Even so, they remained kind and polite despite the awful abuse they received from patients who should not have been in hospital.)My post-operative appointments were well managed with very little excessive waiting, and the consultants shared X-rays and their analyses of the improvements with me in an adult-to-adult way. The second operation to remove the plate went ahead as scheduled and I recovered well, although I did have to seek private physiotherapy as timely appointments were just not available. I cannot fault the treatment I received. Having lived and worked abroad (USA) in the past, I shudder to think what such service would have cost me (or my insurer, if I even had one willing to pay out without quibble).OK, perhaps I was just lucky, and I appreciate that many people do not have such timely and successful treatment. However, this was the first time in my life (and I am in my late 70s) that I have ever been admitted into hospital, and all I can say is that the interactions I had with ALL STAFF were thoroughly professional, and it was absolutely evident that at all times, my welfare was their primary concern. It is this ethos that is so important and significantly contributes to patient recovery. Despite the incredible demands that are made of them, the staff I encountered never fell short of this ideal.MikeJWI was talking to a care assistant yesterday. They had a resident needing urgent hospital admission on Saturday night. Eventually, the patient was prioritised (collect within two hours). To achieve this, the GP had to argue over the phone with the ambulance driver and the admissions nurse, who didn’t think (without seeing the patient) that it should be an admission. Madness!DafBDoes the NHS low rating reflect more on us?What should we expect? On May 17 last year I was rushed to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in critical condition. During the three weeks I stayed there, I received treatment that was, to say the least, satisfactory. It was sufficient to restore me to a healthier state. If we’re assisted when we need it most, does that meet an objective standard by which to measure universal health care?Maybe I was lucky to get a lot more than that: the nursing staff provided genuinely kind attention. The doctors were engaged in my care and worked to find appropriate solutions, applying their expert judgement. The technicians were efficient and thoughtful. The contract staff also deserve a mention for their efforts. With only a few exceptions, the staff were friendly, considerate, dedicated, cheerful, and effective.Does the low rating the NHS has received reflect more on the society of moaners and whiners we have become? Want to take the NHS away? Not from my dead, lifeless hands – which might have been the case under a privatised system that I could not afford. Keep greed at bay and the profit motive in its place. Those who want to make health care exclusively “user pays” are only interested in making a killing (pun intended).SpineFilmPolitical footballA massive influx of migrants over many years with no corresponding increase in infrastructure. Many European doctors and nurses left after Brexit because they felt unwelcome. British-trained doctors are leaving the UK in numbers for where the grass is greener. The huge disruption of Covid. Around 50,000 clinical vacancies nationwide. Nowhere near enough doctors and nurses in training. The NHS is a political football at the mercy of posturing politicians. Just a few reasons for the massive mess.NomoneyinthebankLacking in common senseI had breast cancer resulting in a double mastectomy in 2008 and then again in 2017 when a new cancer developed from the tissue of my skin used in the reconstruction 8 years later. I had an ultrasound exam for five years after that. Then nothing.After querying this with The Royal Marsden, they refused to do further annual check-ups because I was told the NHS “guidelines” state that check-ups are only required for five years after a double mastectomy. These are guidelines, not rules, which my body clearly does not adhere to, given the eight-year gap between my cancers.I have twin daughters – one in Canada, the other in Australia. The guidelines for these countries mean they both receive an annual MRI scan from the age of 30, because of my history. Yet the NHS refuses to check me. Rigid, lacking in common sense, false economy.Aryhian1Going privateNot enough beds or staff to match the workload. I have recently gone private to have an operation (the NHS waiting list is nearly 12 months) to relieve extreme pain when walking or standing. Ironically, I could only afford to do this because of my NHS pension (which I paid into for 47 years).AndyBNothing but praiseI was diagnosed with stage four cancer four years ago. I had an operation five weeks later and, I’ve been on chemotherapy more or less continuously ever since. Currently, I attend the hospital every two weeks for chemo, as well as a mix of face-to-face and phone consultations. I have nothing but praise for the treatment I’ve received, and I am very grateful to the NHS and all the staff who’ve treated me.BozI’m not sure what my surgery doesI’m not sure what my surgery does anymore. It used to be full of people waiting to see the doctor. I got called for a check-up by the nurse. I sat in an empty waiting room, saw one person come in, and no one came out of the rooms. I was called 20 minutes later than my appointment time, which I would have considered acceptable in the past, but now I wondered what the nurse sitting in the room was doing during her time on her own.MorganErrors of communication… but excellent treatmentI can only speak as I find, and that is that I have received excellent treatment from the NHS over many years, notwithstanding errors of communication that occasionally happen in any organisation. Family connections have told me of computer system incompatibilities, which must be annoying, but not my experience of course. Covid messed things up a fair amount, as did progressive attempts by some politicians to go the American way and push insurance medicine.DaveN12Good care if you’re seriously illThe data communication between hospital and GP is seemingly incompatible, which causes problems, and there are numerous systemic shortfalls which are too numerous to mention.If you are seriously ill, however, the quality and provision of treatment services are still excellent and should be applauded rather than continually criticised.My husband was diagnosed with a very serious and life-threatening condition in November 2022. His treatment started in December 2022 and has continued to date.All of the staff, ranging from consultants, surgeons, and nurses to all ancillary staff, have shown nothing but care and kindness in a very skilled and professional manner throughout. This has been a very difficult time for us, but we have nothing but praise for the skills, hard work, and dedication provided.newmarketThree examples of an NHS in chaosFirst example: The NHS in our area (Bucks) is as close to a total joke as one can find! I’ve been waiting more than 14 months for a GP-assessed “urgent” dermatology appointment for a burn that won’t heal, and the county dermatology group downgraded it to “routine” WITHOUT ever even seeing me! I have just this week been back to our GP who has again raised an “urgent” referral, which I strongly believe will lead to nowt.Second example: I was in hospital (Berks.) in Dec 2019 for a severe bout of pneumonia. I had Bupa at the time and then saw a Bupa specialist (a Bucks NHS doctor!) who confirmed some additional lung investigation and a procedure likely would be needed. When I lost my job, after waiting 18 months to get back to that NHS doctor, she discounted everything she said needed to be/would be done.Third example: After I was discharged from the hospital for that 2019 stay, I was given 17 pages of printouts. I asked what to do with them and why they weren’t being sent electronically. I was told the NHS trusts don’t share electronically between (at least) Berks and Bucks. Great stuff, as we are now reverting back to the 1970s!Farce. Waste of time. Waste of money.SpendThriftyI don’t recognise the institution I trained inBoth my husband and I are ex-NHS workers – now retired. Our son is also an NHS frontline worker and, like many, suffered a great deal during the pandemic. I don’t now recognise the institution I trained and worked in, where the emphasis was on ever-improving patient care.I do remember the Blair years when the NHS flourished with proper funding, waiting lists were shorter, staffing levels and morale were high, and the delivery of care was motivated by patient needs.For nearly 15 years I have lived with a post-surgical complication which has had a huge impact on my life. Instead of care, I have been gaslighted, intermittently offered help, then left waiting years for nothing, several times ‘lost in the system’ and frequently being passed from one department to another. I know I am not alone.I really want to see care for the NHS restored by proper funding, and management allowed to do the time-consuming background work that is needed to keep it on its feet, instead of being vilified. Clinical staff should be free to deliver patient care; they can only do this with adequate funding and managed support. I would like to see a return to smaller regions and more equity nationally. As pensioners, neither myself nor my husband have confidence that we will receive the care we might need in our older age.Worrying times, in more ways than one.ClaraknellSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

  • in

    Second child dies of measles in Texas amid rising outbreak

    A second child with measles has died in Texas amid a steadily growing outbreak that has infected nearly 500 people in that state alone.The US health and human services department confirmed the death to NBC late Saturday, though the agency insisted exactly why the child died remained under investigation. On Sunday, a spokesperson for the UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, said that the child had been hospitalized before dying and was “receiving treatment for complications of measles” – which is easily preventable through vaccination.The family of the child in question had chosen to not get the minor vaccinated against the illness.Michael Board, a news reporter at Texas’s WOAI radio station, wrote on Sunday that official word from the state’s health and human services department was that the child died from “measles pulmonary failure” while having had no underlying conditions.Citing records it had obtained, the New York Times described the child as an eight-year-old girl.That marked the second time a child with measles had died since 26 February. The first was a six-year-old girl – also hospitalized in Lubbock – whose parents had not had her vaccinated.The Trump administration’s health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, on Sunday identified the two children to have died with measles as Kayley Fehr and Daisy Hildebrand. Daisy was the one who died more recently, and Kennedy said in a statement that he traveled to her funeral on Sunday to be with her family as well as the community in its “moment of grief”.Kennedy for years has baselessly sowed doubt about vaccine safety and efficacy. He sparked alarm in March among those concerned by the US’s measles outbreak when he backed vitamins to treat the illness and stopped short of endorsing protective vaccines, which he minimized as merely a “personal choice” rather than a safety measure that long ago was proven effective.In his statement on Sunday, Kennedy said: “The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine,” which also provides protection against mumps and rubella. He also said he would send a team to support Texas’s local- and state-level responses to the ongoing measles outbreak.A third US person to have died after contracting measles was an unvaccinated person in Lea county, New Mexico, officials in that state announced in early March.Dr Peter Marks, who recently resigned as the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine while attributing that decision to Kennedy’s “misinformation and lies”, blamed the US health secretary and his staff for the death of the child being buried on Sunday.“This is the epitome of an absolute needless death,” Marks said Sunday during an interview with the Associated Press. “These kids should get vaccinated – that’s how you prevent people from dying of measles.”Marks also told the AP that he had warned US senators that the country would endure more measles-related deaths if the Trump administration did not more aggressively respond to the outbreak. The Senate health committee has called Kennedy to testify before the group on Thursday.One of that committee’s members is the Louisiana Republican and medical doctor Bill Cassidy, who frequently speaks about the importance of getting vaccinates against diseases but joined his Senate colleagues in voting to confirm Kennedy as the US health secretary.Cassidy on Sunday published a statement saying: “Everyone should be vaccinated.”There is “no benefit to getting measles”, Cassidy’s statement added. “Top health officials should say so unequivocally [before] another child dies.”Measles, which is caused by a highly contagious, airborne virus that spreads easily when an infected person breathes, sneezes or coughs, had been declared eliminated from the US in 2000. But the virus has recently been spreading in undervaccinated communities, with Texas and New Mexico standing among five states with active outbreaks – which is defined as three or more cases.The other states are Kansas, Ohio and Oklahoma. Collectively, as of Friday, the US had surpassed 600 measles cases so far this year – more than double the number it recorded in all of 2024. Health officials and experts have said that they expect the measles outbreak to go on for several more months at least – if not for about a year.Texas alone was reporting 481 cases across 19 counties as of Friday, most of them in the western region of the state. It registered 59 previously unreported cases between Tuesday and Friday. There were also 14 new hospitalizations, for a total of 56 throughout the outbreak.More than 65% of Texas’s measles cases are in Gaines county, which has a population of just under 23,000, and was where the virus started spreading in a tightly knit, undervaccinated Mennonite community.Gaines has logged 315 cases – in just over 1% of the county’s residents – since late January.The Associated Press contributed reporting More