|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 30, 2004 2:59:29 GMT -5
When I was a brand new nurse just out of school, I worked for a large group of private practice physicians, one an onocologist. I was taught to mix chemo drugs right at the nurses station. This was 19 yrs ago and I really didn't know what I was doing but I thought that I had been taught correctly. After 2 yrs OSHA came in. As I said, I was just out of school and assumed my employers had taught me the correct way to mix these dangrous carcinogens. Remember, this was before AIDS or Hep C and we rarely even used gloves back then. The group was fined big time. You see, some of these drugs are so toxic that there is a possibility of danger if they even touch your skin. I now know that there is suppose to be a hood under which to mix and that gloves, gown and masks are necessary to fully protect yourself. I can't tell you how many times I had some of these drugs on my skin. Once I had a faulty syringe and Adriamycin (VERY TOXIC) got into my eye. Fortunately I only suffered blurred vision for a week and then recovered. I can't speak for other professions but in nursing we are already exposed to so much. I'm happy to have OSHA because without them I know that my profession would be even less safe. Especially now that hospitals are corporate run.
|
|
MarkS
Newbie
Bencher paddles.
Posts: 10
|
Post by MarkS on Mar 30, 2004 22:08:17 GMT -5
I doubt that those things would not be there without the government. In most cases, the safety features are a selling point, or even a cost-saving measure, as in at airports. Consumers demand safety, and only the slow fail to meet that demand. They don't last long. - Rick Let's not take my examples too literally. The simple fact is the safety standards we take for granted today are there because government got involved--not necessarily because the private sector responded. However, action typically took place after painful lessons learned. For example, doors on all public buildings and places of business all open outward. Why? One too many fires at cinemas in NYC decades ago where the rush of the crowd trying to escape crushed people against the doors such that no one could get out. Without safety standards, you have privatized ad-hoc safety in products, services, and places of employment both public and private. Some effective, some not, but I guarantee you that when one of those companies is slow to come up with an effective solution, we'll see it on the news before the company goes out of business. That doesn't mean companies can't innovate. They just have to meet the baseline requirements. Nor does it mean that the standard is always effective. Designing safety in is not always straight-forward. Of course, you could always calculate the E-field density of a cell phone yourself to see if it's safe or look up an MSDS (it's okay if you don't know what that is, but I bet outgirl does though) to see how toxic a substance is rather than have a label for it. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 30, 2004 23:23:33 GMT -5
Let's not take my examples too literally. The simple fact is the safety standards we take for granted today are there because government got involved--not necessarily because the private sector responded. However, action typically took place after painful lessons learned. For example, doors on all public buildings and places of business all open outward. Why? One too many fires at cinemas in NYC decades ago where the rush of the crowd trying to escape crushed people against the doors such that no one could get out. Without safety standards, you have privatized ad-hoc safety in products, services, and places of employment both public and private. Some effective, some not, but I guarantee you that when one of those companies is slow to come up with an effective solution, we'll see it on the news before the company goes out of business. That doesn't mean companies can't innovate. They just have to meet the baseline requirements. Nor does it mean that the standard is always effective. Designing safety in is not always straight-forward. Of course, you could always calculate the E-field density of a cell phone yourself to see if it's safe or look up an MSDS (it's okay if you don't know what that is, but I bet outgirl does though) to see how toxic a substance is rather than have a label for it. It's difficult to respond without specific circumstances, as each instance of government intervention has its own story, but from my reading, I have seen a pattern of the government stepping in when the industry has already met the standards being set. It is for the few declining stragglers that these tend to be enacted, and udually the cost of compliance is enough to put the final nail in their coffins. Maybe not-so-ironically, usually you can find the more established companies in the particular industry backing the new regulation as a way of rent seeking, trying to keep out competition. I can see your concern about the safety of various products, and the feeling of wanting to have an OSHA or FDA there to protect us. I think, though, absent these agencies, the market would come up with some interesting solutions. For instance, underwriters groups and consumer reports agencies would most likely crop up to rate and evaluate products. There would be commercial pharmeceutical books describing the effects and side-effects of various drugs, and rating them on safety. The key would be that people would have to make the effort to protect themselves. I am confident, if they know the State is not doing it, they will shoulder the responsability, especially when it is more important. And this kind of self-ownership would be just a happy unintended consequence. Thanks for coming back by, Mark! It's nice to have some reasonable, intelligent conservative opposition around here. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Mar 31, 2004 3:02:43 GMT -5
Let's not take my examples too literally. The simple fact is the safety standards we take for granted today are there because government got involved--not necessarily because the private sector responded. However, action typically took place after painful lessons learned. For example, doors on all public buildings and places of business all open outward. Why? One too many fires at cinemas in NYC decades ago where the rush of the crowd trying to escape crushed people against the doors such that no one could get out. Without safety standards, you have privatized ad-hoc safety in products, services, and places of employment both public and private. Some effective, some not, but I guarantee you that when one of those companies is slow to come up with an effective solution, we'll see it on the news before the company goes out of business. That doesn't mean companies can't innovate. They just have to meet the baseline requirements. Nor does it mean that the standard is always effective. Designing safety in is not always straight-forward. Of course, you could always calculate the E-field density of a cell phone yourself to see if it's safe or look up an MSDS (it's okay if you don't know what that is, but I bet outgirl does though) to see how toxic a substance is rather than have a label for it. I agree |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Mar 31, 2004 8:06:00 GMT -5
One of those "kids" is my mom and I am 25. You kids are a riot  And I'm not old enough to be your mom! For some reason, that makes me happy. I'm only a decade older. HA I was born in 1964 and got to see the 60's from a small angle. Now pass that, will ya? |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Mar 31, 2004 8:13:13 GMT -5
It is not just the government that pays for these things. We the people pay for insurance increases that include car accidents, obesity, smoking, etc... and I think they love us paying higher premiums which is why they don't cover so many preventative measures. I see your point, and as long as government has decided to pay for these things, it is a good one. I just don't see the wisdom in stripping someone's rights away one at a time to save some money. I mean, what about morbidly obese people? They say that it causes more deaths per year than smoking. That surely costs us a fortune. Bungee jumping? Sky diving? Skiing? All risky behaviors that could cost us more money. As soon as one thing is taken care of, some group will come out swinging at the next one. Life, in and of itself, is a risky adventure. I'd rather be free to choose my own risks. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Mar 31, 2004 8:14:37 GMT -5
I can tell you absolutely that I never wore my seatbelt until they could pull me over for it. I can see your point too outgirl. I am so militant about the seat belt and the helmet. You'd be proud We don't drive unless and until everyone is belted. And they won't go riding around without a helmet. No discussion over it. But, I have to ask you, in terms of the law, is it the law that makes you believe those things, or your own intelligence? I know I would feel the same way and act the same way whether there were laws or not. I know. I did. You probably did too When it comes to helping others, or helping kids with stupid parents, I want to agree with you, but I don't think it helps all that much. Kids with idiotic, thoughtless parents are in for any number of risks that most people wouldn't cause to happen. Not leaving a baby alone on a bed. Not letting their kids play outside by the road when they're too young to really understand the danger. Stuff like that. Good parents will try to do the right thing, and bad parents can't be fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Mar 31, 2004 8:17:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I admit it. They got me. But then the potheads brought me back. Yes Rick. You might be able to justify smoking pot but you can't justify why Connor needs to wear a seat belt and you don't. By the way, the pot thing gets pretty difficult too once they get the DARE program in school. Good Luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Mar 31, 2004 8:28:13 GMT -5
Well said Mark. Rick, I think the market would come up with whatever sells and saves them money. Not usually safety measures. Nurses have a lot of responsibility and don't have much time to read every medical book to discover if it harms them while giving life saving treatments and such. We are ofter unaware of the dangers without the regulations that protect us. And do you believe that pharmaceutical companies would tell us all of the dangerous side effects lest we use another product. They want their buck as much as any other company. Furthermore, employees of big companies are ofter unqualified and lack the resourses to research every practice and adaquately protect themselves. Outside sources must do this for us so we can do our jobs (i.e. life saving procedure) without risking our own lives in the process. Trust your healthcare professionals when it comes to knowing if regulations are appropriate in hospitals. It's safer for us. It's safer for the patient. Period. It's difficult to respond without specific circumstances, as each instance of government intervention has its own story, but from my reading, I have seen a pattern of the government stepping in when the industry has already met the standards being set. It is for the few declining stragglers that these tend to be enacted, and udually the cost of compliance is enough to put the final nail in their coffins. Maybe not-so-ironically, usually you can find the more established companies in the particular industry backing the new regulation as a way of rent seeking, trying to keep out competition. I can see your concern about the safety of various products, and the feeling of wanting to have an OSHA or FDA there to protect us. I think, though, absent these agencies, the market would come up with some interesting solutions. For instance, underwriters groups and consumer reports agencies would most likely crop up to rate and evaluate products. There would be commercial pharmeceutical books describing the effects and side-effects of various drugs, and rating them on safety. The key would be that people would have to make the effort to protect themselves. I am confident, if they know the State is not doing it, they will shoulder the responsability, especially when it is more important. And this kind of self-ownership would be just a happy unintended consequence. Thanks for coming back by, Mark! It's nice to have some reasonable, intelligent conservative opposition around here. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Mar 31, 2004 14:54:35 GMT -5
Rick, I think the market would come up with whatever sells and saves them money. Not usually safety measures. If that's what we demand, they do. Nurses have a lot of responsibility and don't have much time to read every medical book to discover if it harms them while giving life saving treatments and such. We are ofter unaware of the dangers without the regulations that protect us. They have to find out somehow, don't they? Regulations don't magically prevent you from doing these things without your knowledge. I suggest hospital administrators would be able to handle informing you of these things, just as the regulators do. In fact, I would bet that most of it comes to you via administration already, anyway. And do you believe that pharmaceutical companies would tell us all of the dangerous side effects lest we use another product. They want their buck as much as any other company. No, I believe that private consumer advocates would do that. Comsumers would be free to choose the source whose information they trust the most. Besides, then tens of thousands of people will stop dying, waiting for potential life-saving medications to clear the FDA. They'd be free to take their own risks, choose their own treatment. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 1, 2004 11:31:02 GMT -5
If that's what we demand, they do. They have to find out somehow, don't they? Regulations don't magically prevent you from doing these things without your knowledge. I suggest hospital administrators would be able to handle informing you of these things, just as the regulators do. In fact, I would bet that most of it comes to you via administration already, anyway. No, I believe that private consumer advocates would do that. Comsumers would be free to choose the source whose information they trust the most. Besides, then tens of thousands of people will stop dying, waiting for potential life-saving medications to clear the FDA. They'd be free to take their own risks, choose their own treatment. - Rick I would never want my hospital administrator to make decisions regarding my safety. They have put me in too many precarious situations in the past. Rick, I don't think that you really understand what I am exposed to in my job. To make the kind of informed decisions that you speak of, I would not only need a degree in nursing, I would also need to be a chemist, an expert in biohazard waste mgmt. radioactive waste mgmt. and an infectious disease expert. I'm a nurse and I am too damn busy to be responsible for everything. I would be so busy researching everything that my patients would be dead before I ever saw them . I agree that the FDA take too long to approve new drugs, especially for HIV and cancer. I do believe that there is some shady business there involved with the pharmaceutical companies but I also want to know that they have been tested for there effectiveness and safety. What if it were Connor. Don't you want to know that every effort was made to assure that drugs given him are at least not going to make him worse? |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 1, 2004 13:26:54 GMT -5
I would never want my hospital administrator to make decisions regarding my safety. They have put me in too many precarious situations in the past. Rick, I don't think that you really understand what I am exposed to in my job. To make the kind of informed decisions that you speak of, I would not only need a degree in nursing, I would also need to be a chemist, an expert in biohazard waste mgmt. radioactive waste mgmt. and an infectious disease expert. I'm a nurse and I am too damn busy to be responsible for everything. I would be so busy researching everything that my patients would be dead before I ever saw them . I agree that the FDA take too long to approve new drugs, especially for HIV and cancer. I do believe that there is some shady business there involved with the pharmaceutical companies but I also want to know that they have been tested for there effectiveness and safety. What if it were Connor. Don't you want to know that every effort was made to assure that drugs given him are at least not going to make him worse? If Connor were sick, I would want to know that all treatment options were available to him. I know how it can be at hospitals - my mom was a nurse, too. The truth is, the good and responsible hospitals will follow the governments safety regulations, and then some. The bad and irresponsible hospitals won't. It would be much the same if private agencies were the ones certifying the safety of procedures and medicine. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 2, 2004 1:57:03 GMT -5
If Connor were sick, I would want to know that all treatment options were available to him. I know how it can be at hospitals - my mom was a nurse, too. The truth is, the good and responsible hospitals will follow the governments safety regulations, and then some. The bad and irresponsible hospitals won't. It would be much the same if private agencies were the ones certifying the safety of procedures and medicine. - Rick All hospitals, good or bad have to follow the governments safety regulations. Maybe I don't understand your meaning then because I thought that is what you were speaking against by stating that hospital administration should be in charge of this. It is because of federal regulations and safety inspections that we have universal guidelines to follow whether its a large urban hospital or small country hospital. Of course you would want all treatment options for your son, but that's kind of like the anyone but Bush slogan that you hate so much. A drug with too much anticoagulation properties that would cause him to bleed to death would not be an option. Without testing, how would you know if it were safe. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 2, 2004 12:04:14 GMT -5
All hospitals, good or bad have to follow the governments safety regulations. Maybe I don't understand your meaning then because I thought that is what you were speaking against by stating that hospital administration should be in charge of this. It is because of federal regulations and safety inspections that we have universal guidelines to follow whether its a large urban hospital or small country hospital. Of course you would want all treatment options for your son, but that's kind of like the anyone but Bush slogan that you hate so much. A drug with too much anticoagulation properties that would cause him to bleed to death would not be an option. Without testing, how would you know if it were safe. Oh, of course. I am not saying things should not be tested. I am saying I would trust a private lab more than my government to get that information to me in a timely and thorough manner. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 2, 2004 15:34:12 GMT -5
Oh, of course. I am not saying things should not be tested. I am saying I would trust a private lab more than my government to get that information to me in a timely and thorough manner. - Rick perhaps |
|
