|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 20, 2009 14:39:05 GMT -5
asmo saving 1 life makes it worth it to me.........how many would it have to save for you to be worth it? What if that 1 kid saved was yours? Or put another way, 2 children in our district have died. Isn't it great that we live in a district that is trying to prevent these deaths with a simple test. and we have the means to do so. Courtesy of arch from blue........ I refer you here: kbmf.net/index.htm
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Apr 20, 2009 19:24:26 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding cruel, I don't know if one life is worth it. As a comparison, we could eliminate virtually ALL traffic fatalities if we lowered the speed limit to 15 mph. Yet would any reasonable person advocate this even it would save thousands of lives?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 20, 2009 19:38:58 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding cruel, I don't know if one life is worth it. As a comparison, we could eliminate virtually ALL traffic fatalities if we lowered the speed limit to 15 mph. Yet would any reasonable person advocate this even it would save thousands of lives? Then using your reasoning all cars would only need a lawnmower sized engine....Think of the gas savings. To me these (heart scans and speed limits) are not comparables. BTW I have handled fatalities at speeds lower than 15Mph.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Apr 20, 2009 21:52:49 GMT -5
The point is that the argument "if we save just one life, it's worth it" is usually not true when weighed against the costs.
This gets into game theory, but consider the paying of a ransom. To the parents or spouse of a kidnapping victim, it makes sense to pay the ransom as it affects them directly. However, it is clearly in the best interests of society for them NOT to pay the ransom, for it only encourages more hostage taking. In that regard, the payer of a ransom can be considered selfish.
In a world with limited resources, we should try to maximize our return. There will always be tradeoffs requiring a risk/reward analysis. As one example, the heart screening of thousands of people in a concentrated period of time introduced the real chance, however small, of a perverse irony -- that people could have died in a car crash driving to the event. I'm not saying the odds of such a crash were more likely than finding x number of kids who face early cardiac death, but it does merit some thought.
|
|
|
Post by sportsmom on Apr 20, 2009 22:45:00 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding cruel, I don't know if one life is worth it. As a comparison, we could eliminate virtually ALL traffic fatalities if we lowered the speed limit to 15 mph. Yet would any reasonable person advocate this even it would save thousands of lives? It is definately worth it! Zamarri was in my son's class and played basketball and football with him. They played on the same football team at Still. My son sobbed when Zamarri passed away. Yes, it is worth it. In another post you refer to the "cost". What costs?? I'm going to throw another spin at you. You mentined that the Heart foundation is a not for profit funded by doctors. I am a CPA and while I work with individual and small business tax, I also audit not for profits. Most likely these doctors have boat loads of income. By forming not for profits, you can take legal tax dedcutions and use the funds to promote something near and dear to you (screening for kids) or you can just throw it to the federal government in federal income tax. Charitable contribution are not limited and are fully dedcutible (for now). I don't think there any ulterier (sp?) motives behind these doctors funding a not for profit. It actually makes good business sense (but not in the way you were referring.)
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 21, 2009 7:45:33 GMT -5
The point is that the argument "if we save just one life, it's worth it" is usually not true when weighed against the costs. This gets into game theory, but consider the paying of a ransom. To the parents or spouse of a kidnapping victim, it makes sense to pay the ransom as it affects them directly. However, it is clearly in the best interests of society for them NOT to pay the ransom, for it only encourages more hostage taking. In that regard, the payer of a ransom can be considered selfish. In a world with limited resources, we should try to maximize our return. There will always be tradeoffs requiring a risk/reward analysis. As one example, the heart screening of thousands of people in a concentrated period of time introduced the real chance, however small, of a perverse irony -- that people could have died in a car crash driving to the event. I'm not saying the odds of such a crash were more likely than finding x number of kids who face early cardiac death, but it does merit some thought. I still think your comparables are invalid. But for the sake of arguement. Do you know how much each heart test performed cost? Let's say it was $100.00 (Probably way high). Now for your argument - the carmakers come up with a new gizmo (Think of 3rd brake light and retractable shoulder belts as old examples) that will cost $100.00 per car, but will now save lives. ( I like the foam cushion in Demolition man!) All new cars will have to have this gizmo...is that worth it?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 21, 2009 8:14:33 GMT -5
We really try to refrain from having cross board conversations...too confusing............ I am making an exception for this post on blue from arch The point is that the argument "if we save just one life, it's worth it" is usually not true when weighed against the costs. This gets into game theory, but consider the paying of a ransom. To the parents or spouse of a kidnapping victim, it makes sense to pay the ransom as it affects them directly. However, it is clearly in the best interests of society for them NOT to pay the ransom, for it only encourages more hostage taking. In that regard, the payer of a ransom can be considered selfish. In a world with limited resources, we should try to maximize our return. There will always be tradeoffs requiring a risk/reward analysis. As one example, the heart screening of thousands of people in a concentrated period of time introduced the real chance, however small, of a perverse irony -- that people could have died in a car crash driving to the event. I'm not saying the odds of such a crash were more likely than finding x number of kids who face early cardiac death, but it does merit some thought. Are you f**k**g kidding me? Someone doesn't know they have a heart irregularity and you want to equate it to a ransom payment? I repeat: Are you f**k**g kidding me? Dude (or dudette) I almost died on a god damned table in an urgent care facility back in 1995 due to the very same thing Kathryn Bender dropped dead from AT WVHS AUDITORIUM at a dance show. In fact, they gave me 3 doses of a drug that should have killed me many times over to try to shock my heart out of the 300+ irregular pulse rate (after it calmed down from the night before) it was stuck in. Many people have this problem who do not know it and stress is what brings it on. It can be physical stress, emotional stress or a combination of both. If you are unlucky enough to have this condition and the planets line up just right you can have the atrium and the ventricles fire at the same time. Guess what blamo that does to your heart/arteries as a result...? Yup, enjoy your next full second of life if you even have that long.
Just identifying the parents/child to the potential condition will allow them to rethink/retask their lives that could save it.
What does it actually cost you as an individual taxpayer for the district to do this? Give me a specific dollar amount, the formula you used to derive it, sign up an account here, and I will pay you CASH for your fair share if you feel so put out by this program.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Apr 21, 2009 11:36:50 GMT -5
I'm NOT saying that no one should be tested or that the illness/defect does not exist. If someone wants this test, or one for HIV, etc., they are readily available.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Apr 21, 2009 11:53:05 GMT -5
I'm NOT saying that no one should be tested or that the illness/defect does not exist. If someone wants this test, or one for HIV, etc., they are readily available. Yes, but, as far as I know, 204 does not promote sexual activity as a curricular, co-curricular, or extra-curricular activity on campus. On the other hand, requiring 4 years of PE, in addition to offering numerous extra-curricular sporting activities makes the heart test VERY relevant. Asmo, you are way out of line on this, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Apr 21, 2009 11:59:03 GMT -5
So now it's a legal issue? Should it be federally mandated?
We can disagree on this, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by warriormom on Apr 21, 2009 15:54:20 GMT -5
Amo....Usually I agree with you.... but on this topic I think you are in left field.
There is no relevance to your cost/benefit analysis because there is NO cost to the district! Volunteers are making this testing possible .
I would guess you would feel differently if your child was one of the kids who was found to have HCM or RV dysplasia. You would be incredibly thankful that people took the time to volunteer when the odds were so low that a case would be detected.
If this was costing taxpayer monies, you might have a point but its not.
Lastly, a routine pediatric appointment does not normally consist of an EKG. AND most pediatricians are not skilled at assessing subtle abnormalities from the EKG that a cardiologist would .
My point is...quit your beef. It is a good program, which is costing us nothing, being run by an organization that truely cares about these kids.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Apr 21, 2009 19:54:34 GMT -5
. If this is so important, maybe routine pediatric appointments should include the test.
I am obviously in the extreme minority on this one, so I will leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by sportsmom on Apr 21, 2009 22:04:47 GMT -5
. If this is so important, maybe routine pediatric appointments should include the test. I am obviously in the extreme minority on this one, so I will leave it at that. I do agree with Asmos on this. I would be concerned that now the parents get negatives and now think their child is OK, never to have the heart addressed again. That is a little scary. My son tested negative and has an abnormal aortic valve. While he has no restrictions, I do medicate him for dental appointments and any procedure where bacteria may travel to the heart. His risk now is he most likely will need a new aortic valve in his 40's. I am glad to know about this now and have it checked annually and be able to research where progress is on aortic valve replacements. I also am glad that when the valve starts to thicken we most likely will know that from the annual sonogram before he begins to have symptoms. However, his EKG is normal. It was a very perceptive pediatrician (in PA) who heard the abnormal murmer during a routine vistit and referred us to a cardiologist. It was confimed via sonagram - which may or not be practical to do in the ped office?? Most importantly, parents can rest assured that their child will not collapse on the basketball/dance floor, but the heart may not be 100% healthy either.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Apr 21, 2009 22:58:13 GMT -5
I'm sorry to hear that...I hope everything works out.
As medicine and genetic research continues to advance, there will be more of these types of debates. On one hand, it would seem beneficial to know everything about your own body and those in your family. But do you really want to know certain things? There was a movie made several years ago called Gattaca that explored these issues, and I would recommend it wholeheartedly. It is set in the not-so-distant future, when doctors have the ability to give parents a full rundown of their new baby's "defects," such as whether he or she will need glasses, is likely to get various cancers, etc. The movie examines many ethical issues: Should insurance companies or employers be privy to that information? Should a person avoid activities they enjoy because of an above-average--yet remote-- chance of early death? The main character in the movie, labeled as "invalid" from birth, has dreams of becoming an astronaut but cannot get into the academy due to his supposed defect. Through an elaborate plan of switching identities he is able to pursue his dreams. (I won't give away any more. It really is an excellent, thought provoking and inspiring movie.)
|
|
|
Post by warriormom on Apr 22, 2009 7:00:48 GMT -5
. If this is so important, maybe routine pediatric appointments should include the test. I am obviously in the extreme minority on this one, so I will leave it at that. I do agree with Asmos on this. I would be concerned that now the parents get negatives and now think their child is OK, never to have the heart addressed again. That is a little scary. My son tested negative and has an abnormal aortic valve. While he has no restrictions, I do medicate him for dental appointments and any procedure where bacteria may travel to the heart. His risk now is he most likely will need a new aortic valve in his 40's. I am glad to know about this now and have it checked annually and be able to research where progress is on aortic valve replacements. I also am glad that when the valve starts to thicken we most likely will know that from the annual sonogram before he begins to have symptoms. However, his EKG is normal. It was a very perceptive pediatrician (in PA) who heard the abnormal murmer during a routine vistit and referred us to a cardiologist. It was confimed via sonagram - which may or not be practical to do in the ped office?? Most importantly, parents can rest assured that their child will not collapse on the basketball/dance floor, but the heart may not be 100% healthy either. This particular test is being done to screen for HCM and not other heart abnormalities. An aortic valve abnormality (I will assume your child has a bicuspid aortic valve) is not something that is picked up routinely with an EKG but rather an echo or by hearing a systolic murmur. It is a good thing your pediatrician was able to detect the murmur as many do not if they are subtle. Many people go their whole lives not knowing they have a bicuspid aortic valve until they become so calcified that they experience issues and/or their murmur becomes detectable. However sudden death is not common with a bicuspid aortic valve. It is a progressive condition. The fact that HCM is a major cause of sudden death is why it is being screened for. Sportsmom, your point is correct though that this test is not designed to pick up on all heart abnormalities, just the ones that causes sudden death. So it is important to have your kids' pediatrician visits .
|
|