Can you buy over the counter lasix

At the can you buy over the counter lasix start of field work season, ecologist Jory Brinkerhoff usually advises his crew to watch out for summertime fevers. If you develop a fever at that time of year, he tells them, it’s probably not the flu, but a tick-borne illness.But this year, Brinkerhoff, who studies human risk for flea- and tick-transmitted diseases at the University of Richmond, didn’t know exactly what to tell his field crew. A fever in the middle can you buy over the counter lasix of summer 2020 could mean a tick-borne illness. Or, it could mean hypertension medications.With the novel hypertension lasix still spreading across the country, some experts worry about the overlap between hypertension medications and Lyme disease, which is caused by a bacterium carried by black-legged ticks.

While it’s too soon to know exactly how the lasix will affect Lyme disease rates this year, experts like Brinkerhoff wonder if more people spending time outside beating the quarantine blues could can you buy over the counter lasix lead to more people being exposed to disease-carrying ticks. Some overlapping symptoms might also lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme, he notes. At the same time, weather patterns in some parts of the country may actually lead to fewer Lyme disease cases this year. No matter the broader trends, there are things anyone getting outside can do can you buy over the counter lasix to protect themselves from ticks.

Lyme Disease on the MoveOver the last few decades, Lyme disease has been on the rise in the United States. There are many overlapping reasons for this, says Brinkerhoff can you buy over the counter lasix. Awareness has gone up since the 1970s, when Lyme was first described in the U.S. Landscape changes like cutting forests and building suburbs near wooded areas has put humans in closer contact with ticks and tick-carrying animals.

Deer populations have exploded in the last 100 years, he notes can you buy over the counter lasix. And climate change is likely allowing ticks to spread to and thrive in new parts of the continent. This year, people have flocked to the great can you buy over the counter lasix outdoors to escape their home quarantines and engage in socially-distant fun. It’s possible that more people trying to get outside could mean more people exposed to ticks and, therefore, Lyme disease, says Brinkerhoff, who wrote an article in The Conversation on the issue earlier this year.

Animals have been behaving differently during the lasix as well, especially during the early days of lockdown, and it’s unclear if that could also have an effect on Lyme disease rates, he says.In some parts of the country, however, Lyme may be less of a concern this summer than it normally is. Maine is usually a Lyme hotspot in early summer, but unusually hot and dry weather this year may be keeping ticks close to the ground can you buy over the counter lasix and away from human contact, says Robert P. Smith Jr., an infectious disease physician and director of the division of infectious diseases at Maine Medical Center. While it’s too early to tell, Lyme disease rates in Maine could actually go down this summer as a result, he can you buy over the counter lasix says.Overlapping SymptomsWith everyone rightfully concerned about hypertension medications, Lyme disease likely isn’t at the forefront of someone’s mind if they develop a fever.

Plus, about two-thirds of people with Lyme disease don’t remember being bitten by a tick, says Smith. Many who develop Lyme disease are bitten by poppy seed-sized immature ticks that can stay on the body unnoticed for two or three days before dropping off, he says.There is some overlap between hypertension medications and Lyme disease symptoms that could cause confusion. In both cases, people usually develop can you buy over the counter lasix a fever and muscle aches, says Smith. He has heard secondhand about a few cases in Maine in which patients with these symptoms were first tested for hypertension medications and were later found to have Lyme disease.However, there are some crucial differences between the two illnesses, Smith says.

The majority of people with symptomatic hypertension medications will have a cough or shortness of breath, whereas Lyme disease generally can you buy over the counter lasix has no respiratory component, says Smith. hypertension medications patients also have a higher risk for gastrointestinal issues, and Lyme patients do not. While not all people with Lyme disease develop a rash, 70 to 80 percent do, Smith notes. Rashes are can you buy over the counter lasix not common symptoms for hypertension medications s.

Receiving an accurate diagnosis and relatively quick treatment can greatly reduce the severity of a Lyme disease . €œIt doesn’t can you buy over the counter lasix have to be immediate. If you think you might have Lyme disease, you need to get diagnosed with a week or so,” says Smith. €œThat’s usually very early in the disease and you can expect an excellent response to antibiotic treatment.” Delaying treatment by a couple of weeks can lead to more serious complications, including nerve-related symptoms, Lyme meningitis, facial muscle weakness (Bell’s palsy), Lyme arthritis and other conditions, he says.

While antibiotics are still effective can you buy over the counter lasix at this stage, it tends to take longer to fully recover.Fortunately, for anyone concerned about safe outdoor excursions here and now, there are several practical steps you can take to avoid ticks. Use insect repellant and wear protective layers. Stick to the can you buy over the counter lasix path instead of straying into dense underbrush, says Smith. When you return from an adventure, put your clothes in the washer and check yourself for ticks.

And if you do start to feel feverish a few days later, call your doctor and be sure to mention you’ve been spending time outside..

Lasix ototoxicity

Lasix
Zebeta
Lozol sr
Buy with mastercard
100mg 360 tablet $235.95
5mg 30 tablet $43.80
$
Can cause heart attack
40mg
10mg
How fast does work
7h
14h
1h
How often can you take
Nearby pharmacy
Drugstore on the corner
Offline

Justice, one official statement of the four Beauchamp and Childress prima facie basic principles of biomedical ethics, is explored in two excellent papers in the current issue of lasix ototoxicity the journal. The papers stem from a British Medical Association (BMA) essay competition on justice and fairness in medical practice and policy. Although the competition was open to (almost) all comers, of the 235 entries both the lasix ototoxicity winning paper by Alistair Wardrope1 and the highly commended runner-up by Zoe Fritz and Caitríona Cox2 were written by practising doctors—a welcome indication of the growing importance being accorded to philosophical reflection about medical practice and practices within medicine itself.

Both papers are thoroughly thought provoking and represent two very different approaches to the topic. Each deserves a careful read.The competition was a component of a BMA 2019/2020 ‘Presidential project’ on fairness and justice and asked candidates to ‘use ethical reasoning and theory to tackle challenging, practical, contemporary, problems in health care and help provide a solution based on an explained and defended sense of fairness/justice’.In this guest editorial I’d like to explain why, in 2018 on becoming president-elect of the BMA, I chose the theme of justice and fairness in medical ethics for my 2019–2020 Presidential project—and why in a world of massive and ever-increasing and remediable health inequalities biomedical ethics requires greater international and interdisciplinary efforts to try to reach agreement on the need to achieve greater ‘health justice’ and to reach agreement on what that commitment actually means and on what in practice it requires.First, some background. As president I was offered the wonderful opportunity to pursue, with the organisation’s formidable assistance, lasix ototoxicity a ‘project’ consistent with the BMA’s interests and values.

As a hybrid of general medical practitioner and philosopher/medical ethicist, and as a firm defender of the Beauchamp and Childress four principles approach to medical ethics,3 I chose to try to raise the ethical profile of justice and fairness within medical ethics.My first objective was to ask the BMA to ask the World Medical Association (WMA) to add an explicit commitment ‘to strive to practise fairly and justly throughout my professional life’ to its contemporary version of the Hippocratic Oath—the Declaration of Geneva4—and to the companion document the International Code of Medical Ethics.5 The stimulus for this proposal was the WMA’s addition in 2017 of the principle of respect for patients’ autonomy. Important as that addition is, it is widely perceived (though in my own view mistakenly) as being lasix ototoxicity too much focused on individual patients and not enough on communities, groups and populations. The simple addition of a commitment to fairness and justice would provide a ‘balancing’ moral commitment.Adding the fourth principleIt would also explicitly add the fourth of those four prima facie moral commitments, increasingly widely accepted by doctors internationally.

Two of them—benefiting our patients (beneficence) and doing so with as little harm as possible (non-maleficence)—have been an integral part of medical ethics since Hippocratic times. Respect for autonomy and justice are very lasix ototoxicity much more recent additions to medical ethics. The WMA, having added respect for autonomy to the Declaration of Geneva, should, I proposed, complete the quartet by adding the ‘balancing’ principle of fairness and justice.Since the Declaration is unlikely to be revised for several years, it seems likely that the proposal to add to it an explicit commitment to practise fairly and justly will have to wait.

However, an explicit commitment to justice and fairness has, at the BMA’s request, been added to the draft of the International Code of Medical Ethics and it seems reasonable to hope and expect that it will remain in the final document.Adding a commitment lasix ototoxicity to fairness and justice is the easy part!. Few doctors would on reflection deny that they ought to try to practise fairly and justly. It is far more difficult to say what is actually meant by this.

Two additional components of my Presidential project—the essay competition and a conference (which with luck will have been held, virtually, shortly before publication of this editorial)—sought to help elucidate just lasix ototoxicity what is meant by practising fairly and justly.One of the most striking features of the essay competition was the readiness of many writers to point to injustices in the context of medical practice and policy and describe ways of remedying them, but without giving a specific account of justice and fairness on the basis of which the diagnosis of injustice was made and the remedy offered.Wardrope’s winning essay comes close to such an approach by challenging the implied premise that an account of justice and fairness must provide some such formal theory. In preference, he points to the evident injustice and unsustainability of humans’ degradation of ‘the Land’ and its atmosphere and its inhabitants and then challenges some assumptions of contemporary philosophy and ethics, especially what he sees as their anthropocentric and individualistic focus. Instead, he invokes Leopold Aldo’s ‘Land Ethic’ (as well as drawing in lasix ototoxicity aid Isabelle Stenger’s focus on ‘the intrusion of Gaia’).

In his thoughtful and challenging paper, he seeks to refocus our ethics—including our medical ethics and our sense of justice and fairness—on mankind’s exploitative threat, during this contemporary ‘anthropocene’ stage of evolution, to the continuing existence of humans and of all forms of life in our ‘biotic community’. As remedy, the author, allying his approach to those of contemporary virtue ethics, recommends the beneficial outcomes that would be brought about by a sense of fairness and justice—a developed and sensitive ‘ecological conscience’ as he calls it—that embraces the interests of the entire biotic community of which we humans are but a part.Fritz and Cox pursue a very different and philosophically more conventional approach to the essay competition’s question and offer a combination and development of two established philosophical theories, those of John Rawls and Thomas Scanlon, to provide a philosophically robust and practically beneficial methodology for justice and fairness in medical practice and policy. Briefly summarised, they recommend a two-stage lasix ototoxicity approach for healthcare justice.

First, those faced with a problem of fairness or justice in healthcare or policy should use Thomas Scanlon’s proposed contractualist approach whereby reasonable people seek solutions that they and others could not ‘reasonably reject’. This stage would involve committees of decision-makers and representatives of relevant stakeholders looking at the immediate and longer term impact on existing stakeholders of proposed solutions. They would then check those solutions against substantive criteria of justice derived from Rawls’ theory (which, via lasix ototoxicity his theoretical device of the ‘veil of ignorance’, Rawls and the authors argue that all reasonable people can be expected to accept!.

). The Rawlsian lasix ototoxicity criteria relied on by Fritz and Cox are equity of access to healthcare. The ‘difference principle’ whereby avoidable inequalities of primary goods can only be justified if they benefit the most disadvantaged.

The just savings principle, of particular importance for ensuring intergenerational justice and sustainability. And a criterion of lasix ototoxicity increased openness, transparency and accountability.It would of course be naïve to expect a single universalisable solution to the question ‘what do we mean by fairness and justice in health care?. €™ As the papers by Wardrope1 and Fritz and Cox2 demonstrate, there can be very wide differences of approach in well-defended accounts.

My own hope for my project is to emphasise the importance first of committing ourselves within medicine to practising fairly lasix ototoxicity and justly in whatever branch we practise. And then to think carefully about what we do mean by that and act accordingly.Following AristotleFor my own part, over 40 years of looking, I have not yet found a single substantive theory of justice that is plausibly universalisable and have had to content myself with Aristotle’s formal, almost content-free but probably universalisable theory, according to which equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally in proportion to the relevant inequalities—what some health economists refer to as horizontal and vertical justice or equity.6Beauchamp and Childress in their recent eighth and ‘perhaps final’ edition of their foundational ‘Principles of biomedical ethics’1 acknowledge that ‘[t]he construction of a unified theory of justice that captures our diverse conceptions and principles of justice in biomedical ethics continues to be controversial and difficult to pin down’.They still cite Aristotle’s formal principle (though with less explanation than in their first edition back in 1979) and they still believe that this formal principle requires substantive or ‘material’ content if it is to be useful in practice. They then describe six different theories of justice—four ‘traditional’ (utilitarian, libertarian, communitarian and egalitarian) and two newer theories, which they suggest may be more helpful in the context of health justice, one based on capabilities and the other on actual well-being.They again end their discussion of justice with their reminder that ‘Policies of just access to health care, strategies of efficiencies in health care institutions, and global needs for the reduction of health-impairing conditions dwarf in social importance every other issue considered in this book’ …….

€˜every society must ration its resources but many societies can close lasix ototoxicity gaps in fair rationing more conscientiously than they have to date’ [emphasis added]. And they go on to stress their own support for ‘recognition of global rights to health and enforceable rights to health care in nation-states’.For my own part I recommend, perhaps less ambitiously, that across the globe we extract from Aristotle’s formal theory of justice a starting point that ethically requires us to focus on equality and always to treat others as equals and treat them equally unless there are moral justifications for not doing so. Where such justifications exist we should say what they are, explain the moral assumptions that justify them and, to the extent possible, seek the agreement of those affected.IntroductionIt did not occur to the Governor that there might be more than one definition of what is good … It did not occur to him that while the courts were writing one definition of goodness in the law books, fires lasix ototoxicity were writing quite another one on the face of the land.

(Leopold, ‘Good Oak’1, pp 10–11)As I wrote the abstract that would become this essay, wildfires were spreading across Australia’s east coast. By the time I was invited to write the essay, back-to-back winter storms were flooding communities all around my home. The essay has been written in moments of respite between shifts during lasix ototoxicity the hypertension medications lasix.

Every one of these events was described as ‘unprecedented’. Yet each is becoming increasingly likely, and that due to our interactions with our environment.Public discourse surrounding these events is dominated by questions of justice and fairness. How to balance competing imperatives of protecting individual lives against lasix ototoxicity risk of spreading contagion.

How best to allocate scarce resources like intensive care beds or mechanical ventilators. The conceptual tools of lasix ototoxicity clinical ethics are well tailored to these sorts of questions. The rights of the individual versus the community, issues of distributive justice—these are familiar to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with its canonical debates.What biomedical ethics has remained largely silent on is how we have been left to confront these decisions.

How human activity has eroded Earth’s life support systems to make the ‘unprecedented’ the new normal. A medical ethic fit for the Anthropocene—our (still tentative) geological epoch defined by human influence on natural systems—must be able not just to react to the consequences of our exploitation of the natural world, but reimagine our relationship with it.Those lasix ototoxicity reimaginations already exist, if we know where to look for them. The ‘Land Ethic’ of the US conservationist Aldo Leopold offers one such vision.i Developed over decades of experience working in and teaching land management, the Land Ethic is most famously formulated in an essay of the same name published shortly before Leopold’s death fighting a wildfire on a neighbour’s farm.

It begins with a reinterpretation of the ethical relationship between humanity and the ‘land community’, the ecosystems we live within and depend lasix ototoxicity upon. Moving us from ‘conqueror’ to ‘plain member and citizen’ of that community1 (p 204). Land ceases to be a resource to be exploited for human need once we view ourselves as part of, and only existing within, the land community.

Our moral evaluations lasix ototoxicity shift consonantly:A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.1 (pp 224–225)The justice of the Land Ethic questions many presuppositions of biomedical ethics. By valuing the community in itself—in a way irreducible to the welfare of lasix ototoxicity its members—it steps away from the individualism axiomatic in contemporary bioethics.2 Viewing ourselves as citizens of the land community also extends the moral horizons of healthcare from a solely human focus, taking seriously the interests of the non-human members of that community.

Taking into account the ‘stability’ of the community requires intergenerational justice—that we consider those affected by our actions now, and their implications for future generations.3 The resulting vision of justice in healthcare—one that takes climate and environmental justice seriously—could offer health workers an ethic fit for the future, demonstrating ways in which practice must change to do justice to patients, public and planet—now and in years to come.Healthcare in the AnthropoceneSeemeth it a small thing unto you to have fed upon good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pasture?. And to have drunk of the clear waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?. (Ezekiel 34:18, quoted in Leopold, ‘Conservation in the Southwest’4, p 94)The majority of the development of human societies worldwide—including all of recorded human history—has taken place within a single geological lasix ototoxicity epoch, a roughly 11 600 yearlong period of relative warmth and climatic stability known as the Holocene.

That stability, however, can no longer be taken for granted. The epoch that has sustained most of human development is giving way to one shaped by the planetary consequences of that development—the Anthropocene.The Anthropocene is marked by accelerating degradation of the ecosystems that have sustained human societies. Human activity is already estimated to have raised global temperatures 1°C above preindustrial levels, and if emissions continue at current levels we are likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052.5 The global rate of species extinction is orders of magnitude higher than the average over the past 10 million years.6 Ocean acidification, deforestation and disruption of nitrogen and phosphorus flows are likely at or beyond sustainable planetary lasix ototoxicity boundaries.7Yet this period has also seen rapid (if uneven) improvements in human health, with improved life expectancy, falling child mortality and falling numbers of people living in extreme poverty.

The 2015 report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health explained this dissonance in stark terms. €˜we have been mortgaging the health of future generations to realise economic and development gains in the present.’7In the instrumental rationality of modernity, nature has featured only as inexhaustible resource and lasix ototoxicity infinite sink to fuel social and economic ends. But this disenchanted worldview can no longer hide from the implausibility of these assumptions.

It cannot resist what the philosopher Isabelle Stengers has called ‘the intrusion of Gaia’.8 The present lasix—made more likely by deforestation, land use change and biodiversity loss9—is just the most immediately salient of these intrusions. Anthropogenic environmental changes are increasing undernutrition, increasing range and transmissibility of many vectorborne and waterborne diseases like dengue fever and cholera, increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather lasix ototoxicity events like heatwaves and wildfires, and driving population exposure to air pollution—which already accounts for over 7 million deaths annually.10These intrusions will shape healthcare in the Anthropocene. This is because health workers will have to deal with their consequences, and because modern industrialised healthcare as practised in most high-income countries—and considered aspirational elsewhere—was borne of the same worldview that has mortgaged the health of future generations.

The health sector in the USA is estimated to account for 8% of the country’s greenhouse gas footprint.11 Pharmaceutical production and waste causes more local environmental degradation, accumulating in water supplies with damaging effects for local flora lasix ototoxicity and fauna.12 Public health has similarly embraced short-term gains with neglect of long-term consequences. Health messaging was instrumental to the development and popularisation of many disposable and single-use products, while a 1947 report funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (who would later fund the landmark 2015 Lancet report on planetary health) popularised the high-meat, high-dairy ‘American’ diet—dependent on fossil fuel-driven intensive agricultural practices—as the healthy ideal.13Healthcare fit for the Anthropocene requires a shift in perspectives that allows us to see and work with the intrusion of Gaia. But can dominant approaches in bioethics incorporate that shift?.

A perfect moral stormWe have built a beautiful piece of social machinery … which is coughing along on two cylinders because we lasix ototoxicity have been too timid, and too anxious for quick success, to tell the farmer the true magnitude of his obligations. (Leopold, ‘The Ecological Conscience’4, p 341)At local, national and international scales, the lifestyles of the wealthiest pose an existential threat to the poorest and most marginalised in society. Our actions now are depriving future generations of the environmental prerequisites of good health and social lasix ototoxicity flourishing.

If justice means, as Ranaan Gillon parses it, ‘the moral obligation to act on the basis of fair adjudication between competing claims’,14 then this state of affairs certainly seems unjust. However, the tools available for grappling with questions of justice in bioethics seem ill equipped to deal with these sorts of injustice.To illustrate this problem, consider how Gillon further fleshes out his description of justice. In terms of fair distribution of scarce resources, respect for people’s lasix ototoxicity rights, and respect for morally acceptable laws.

The first of these—labelled distributive justice—concerns how fairly to allot finite resources among potential beneficiaries. Classic problems of distributive justice in healthcare concern a group of people at a particular time (usually patients), who could each benefit from a particular resource (historically, discussions have often focused on transplant organs. More recently, intensive care beds and ventilators have come to lasix ototoxicity the fore).

But there are fewer of these resources than there are people with a need for them. Such discussions are not easy, but lasix ototoxicity they are at least familiar—we know where to begin with them. We can consider each party’s need, their potential to benefit from the resource, any special rights or other claims they may have to it, and so forth.

The distribution of benefits and harms in the Anthropocene, however, does not comfortably fit this formalism. It is one thing to say that there is but one intensive lasix ototoxicity care bed, from which Smith has a good chance of gaining another year of life, Jones a poor chance, and so offer it to Smith. Another entirely to say that production of the materials consumed in Smith’s care has contributed to the degradation of scarce water supplies on the other side of the globe, or that the unsustainable pattern of energy use will affect innumerable other future persons in poorly quantifiable ways through fuelling climate change.

The calculations of distributive justice are well suited to problems where there are a set pool of lasix ototoxicity potential beneficiaries, and the use of the scarce resources available affects only those within that pool. But global environmental problems do not fit this pattern—the effects of our actions are spatially and temporally dispersed, so that large numbers of present and future people are affected in different ways.Nor can this problem be readily addressed by turning to Gillon’s second category of obligations of justice, those grounded in human rights. For while it might be plausible (if not entirely uncontroversial) to say that those communities whose water supplies are degraded by pharmaceutical production have a right to clean water, it is another thing entirely to say that Smith’s healthcare is directly violating that right.

It would not be true to say lasix ototoxicity that, were it not for the resources used in caring for Smith, that the communities in question would face no threat to water security—indeed, they would likely make no appreciable difference. Similarly for the effects of Smith’s care on future generations facing accelerating environmental change.iiThe issue here is of fragmentation of agency. While it is not the case that Smith’s care is directly responsible for these environmental harms, lasix ototoxicity the cumulative consequences of many such acts—and the ways in which these acts are embedded in particular systems of energy generation, waste management, international trade, and so on—are reliably producing these harms.

The injustice is structural, in Iris Marion Young’s terminology—arising from the ways in which social structures constrain individuals from pursuing certain courses of action, and enable them to follow others, with side effects that cumulatively produce devastating impacts.15Gillon describes the third component of justice as respect for morally acceptable laws. But there is little reason to believe that existing legal frameworks provide sufficient guidance to address these structural injustices. While the intricacies of global governance are well beyond what I can hope to address here, the stark fact remains that, despite the international commitment of the 2015 Paris Agreement to attempt to keep global temperature rise to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that present national commitments—even if these are substantially increased in coming years—will take us well beyond that target.5 Confronted by such institutional inadequacy, respect for the rule of law is inadequate to remedy injustice.The confluence of lasix ototoxicity these particular features—dispersion of causes and effects, fragmentation of agency and institutional inadequacy—makes it difficult for us to reason ethically about the choices we have to make weblink.

Stephen Gardiner calls this a ‘perfect moral storm’.16 Each of these factors individually would be difficult to address using the resources of contemporary biomedical ethics. Their convergence makes it seem insurmountable.This perfect storm was not, however, unpredictable. Van Rensselaer lasix ototoxicity Potter, a professor of Oncology responsible for introducing the term ‘bioethics’ into Anglophone discourse, observed that since he coined the phrase, the study of bioethics had diverged from his original usage (governing all issues at the intersection of ethics and the biological sciences) to a narrow focus on the moral dilemmas arising in interactions between individuals in biomedical contexts.

Potter predicted that the short-term, individualistic and medicalised focus of this approach would result in a neglect of population-level and ecological-level issues affecting human and planetary health, with catastrophic consequences.17 His proposed solution was a new ‘global bioethics’, grounded in a new understanding of humanity’s position within planetary systems—one articulated by the Land Ethic.The Land EthicA land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.iii (Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’1, p 204)Developed throughout a career in forestry, conservation and wildlife management, the Land Ethic is less an attempt to provide a set of maxims for moral action, than to shift our lasix ototoxicity perspectives of the moral landscape. In his working life, Aldo Leopold witnessed how actions intended to optimise short-term economic outcomes eroded the environments on which we depend—whether soil degradation arising from intensive farming and deforestation, or disruption of freshwater ecosystems by industrial dairy farming.

He also saw that contemporary morality remained silent on such actions, even when their consequences were to the collective detriment of all.Leopold argued that a series of ‘historical accidents’ left our morality particularly ill suited to handle these intrusions of Gaia—with a worldview that considered them ‘intrusions’, rather than the predictable response of our biotic community. These ‘accidents’ lasix ototoxicity were. The unusual resilience of European ecological communities to anthropogenic interference (England survived an almost wholesale deforestation without consequent loss of ecosystem resilience, while similar changes elsewhere resulted in permanent environmental degradation).

And the legacy of European settler colonialism, lasix ototoxicity meaning that an ethic arising in these particular conditions came to dominate global social arrangements4 (p 311). The first of these supported a worldview in which ‘Land … is … something to be tamed rather than something to be understood, loved, and lived with. Resources are still regarded as separate entities, indeed, as commodities, rather than as our cohabitants in the land community’4 (p 311).

The second enabled the marginalisation of other lasix ototoxicity views. In this genealogy, Leopold anticipated the perfect moral storm discussed above. His intent with the Land Ethic was to navigate it.There are three key components lasix ototoxicity of the Land Ethic that comprise the first three sections of Leopold’s final essay on the subject.

(1) the ‘community concept’ that allows communities as wholes to have intrinsic value. (2) the ‘ethical sequence’ that situates the value of such communities as extending, not replacing, values assigned to individuals. And (3) the ‘ecological conscience’ that views ethical action not in terms of following a particular code, but in developing appropriate moral perception.The community conceptThe lasix ototoxicity most widely quoted passage of Leopold’s opus—already cited above, and frequently (mis)taken as a summary maxim of the ethic—states that:A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.

It is wrong when it tends otherwise.1 (pp 224–225)This passage makes the primary object of our moral responsibilities ‘the biotic community’, a term Leopold uses interchangeably with the ‘land community’. Leopold’s community concept is notable in at least three respects. Its holism—an embrace of the moral significance of communities in a way that is not simply reducible to the significance of lasix ototoxicity its individual members.

Its understanding of communities as temporally extended, placing importance on their ‘integrity’ and ‘stability’. And its rejection of anthropocentrism, affording humanity a place as ‘plain member and citizen’ of a broader land community.Individualism is lasix ototoxicity so prevalent in biomedical ethics that it is scarcely argued for, instead forming part of the ‘background constellation of values’2 tacitly assumed within the field. We are used to evaluating the well-being of a community as a function of the well-being of its individual members—this is the rationale underlying quality-adjusted life year calculations endemic within health economics, and most discussions of distributive justice adopt some variation of this approach.

Holism instead proposes that this makes no more sense than evaluating a person’s well-being as an aggregate of the well-being of their individual organs. While we can sensibly talk about people’s hearts, livers or kidneys, their health is defined in terms of and lasix ototoxicity constitutively dependent on the health of the person as a whole. Similarly, holism proposes, while individuals can be identified separately, it only makes sense to talk about them and their well-being in the context of the larger biotic community which supports and defines us.Holism helps us to negotiate the issues that confront individualistic accounts of collective well-being in Anthropocene health injustices.

In the previous section, we found in the environmental consequences of industrialised healthcare that it is difficult to lasix ototoxicity identify which parties in particular are harmed, and how much each individual action contributes to those harms. But our intuition that the overall result is unfair or unjust is itself a holistic assessment of the overall outcome, not dependent on our calculation of the welfare of every party involved. Holism respects the intuition that says—no matter the individuals involved—a world where people now exploit ecological resources in a fashion that deprives people in the future of the prerequisites of survival, is worse than one where communities now and in the future live in a sustainable relationship with their environment.The second aspect of Leopold’s community concept is that the community is something that does not exist at a single time and place—it is defined in terms of its development through time.

Promoting the ‘integrity’ and ‘stability’ of the community requires that we not just consider its immediate interests, but how that will affect its long-term sustainability or resilience lasix ototoxicity. We saw earlier the difficulties in trying to say just who is harmed and how when we approach harm to future generations individualistically. But from the perspective lasix ototoxicity of the Land Ethic, when we exploit environmental resources in ways that will have predictable damaging results for future generations, the object of our harm is not just some purely notional future person.

It is a presently existing, temporally extended entity—the community of which they will be part.Lastly, Leopold’s community is quite consciously a biotic—not merely human—community. Leopold defines the land community as the open network of energy and mineral exchange that sustains all aspects of that network:Land… is not merely soil. It is a lasix ototoxicity fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals.

Food chains are the living channels which conduct energy upward. Death and decay return it to the soil. The circuit is not closed lasix ototoxicity.

Some energy is dissipated in decay, some is added by absorption, some is stored in soils, peats, and forests, but it is a sustained circuit, like a slowly augmented revolving fund of life.4 (pp 268–269)While the components within this network may change, the land community as a whole remains stable when the overall complexity of the network is not disrupted—other components are able to adjust to these changes, or new ones arise to take their place.ivThe normative inference Leopold makes from his understanding of the land community is this. It makes no sense to single out individual entities within the community as being especially valuable or useful, without taking into account lasix ototoxicity the whole community upon which they mutually depend. To do so is self-defeating.

By privileging the interests of a few members of the community, we ultimately undermine the prerequisites of their existence.The ethical sequenceThe Land Ethic’s holism is in fact its most frequently critiqued feature. Its emphasis on the value of the biotic community leads some to allege a subjugation of individual interests to the needs of the environment lasix ototoxicity. This critique neglects how Leopold positions the Land Ethic in what he calls the ‘ethical sequence’.

This is the gradual extension of scope of ethical considerations, both in terms of the complexity of social interactions they cover (from interactions between two people, lasix ototoxicity to the structure of progressively larger social groups), and in the kinds of person they acknowledge as worthy of moral consideration (as we resist, for example, classist, sexist or racist exclusions from personhood).This sequence serves less as a description of the history of morality, than a prescription for how we should understand the Land Ethic as adding to, rather than supplanting, our responsibilities to others. We do not argue that taking seriously health workers’ responsibilities for public health and health promotion supplants their duties to the patients they work with on a daily basis. Similarly, the Land Ethic implies ‘respect for [our] fellow members, and also respect for the community as such’1 (p 204).

At times, our responsibilities towards lasix ototoxicity these different parties may come into tension. But balancing these responsibilities has always been part of the work of clinical ethics.The ecological conscienceIf the community concept gives a definition of the good, and the ethical sequence situates this definition within the existing moral landscape, neither offers an explicit decision procedure to guide right action. In arguing for the ‘ecological conscience’, Leopold explains his lasix ototoxicity rationale for not attempting to articulate such a procedure.

In his career as conservationist, Leopold witnessed time and again laws nominally introduced in the name of environmental protection that did little to achieve their long-term goals, while exacerbating other environmental threats.v This is not surprising, given the ‘perfect moral storm’ of Anthropocene global health and environmental threats discussed above. The cumulative results of apparently innocent actions can be widespread and damaging.Leopold’s response to this problem is to advocate the cultivation of an ‘ecological conscience’. What is needed to promote a healthy human relationship with the land community is not for us to be told exactly how and how not to act in the face of environmental health threats, but rather to shift our view of the land from ‘a commodity belonging to us’ towards ‘a community to which we belong’1 (p viii) lasix ototoxicity.

To understand what the Land Ethic requires of us, therefore, we should learn more about the land community and our relationship with it, to develop our moral perception and extend its scope to embrace the non-human members of our community.Seen in this light, the Land Ethic shares much in common with virtue ethics, where right action is defined in terms of what the moral agent would do, rather than vice versa. But rather than the Eudaimonia of individual human flourishing proposed by Aristotle, the phronimos of the Land Ethic sees their telos coming from their position within the land community. While clinical virtue ethicists have traditionally taken the virtues of medical practice to be grounded in the interaction with individual patients, the realities of healthcare in the Anthropocene mean that limiting our moral perceptions in this way would ultimately be self-defeating—hurting those very patients we mean to serve (and many more besides).18 The virtuous clinician must adopt a view of the moral world that can focus on a person both as an individual, and simultaneously lasix ototoxicity as member of the land community.

I will close by exploring how adopting that perspective might change our practice.Justice in the AnthropoceneFailing this, it seems to me we fail in the ultimate test of our vaunted superiority—the self-control of environment. We fall back into the biological category of the lasix ototoxicity potato bug which exterminated the potato, and thereby exterminated itself. (Leopold, ‘The River of the Mother of God’4, p 127)I have articulated some of the challenges healthcare faces in the Anthropocene.

I have suggested that the tools presently available to clinical ethics may be inadequate to meet them. The Land Ethic invites us to reimagine our position lasix ototoxicity in and relationship with the land community. I want to close by suggesting how the development of an ecological conscience might support a transition to more just healthcare.

I will not endeavour to give detailed prescriptions for action, given Leopold’s warnings about the lasix ototoxicity limitations of such codifications. Rather, I will attempt to show how the cultivation of an ecological conscience might change our perception of what justice demands. Following the tradition of virtue ethics with which the Land Ethic holds much in common, this is best achieved by looking at models of virtuous action, and exploring what makes it virtuous.19Industrialised healthcare developed within a paradigm that saw the environment as inert resource and held that the scope of clinical ethics ranged only over the clinician’s interaction with their patients.

When we begin to see clinician and patient not as standing apart from the environment, but as ‘member and citizen of the land community’, their relationship with one another lasix ototoxicity and with the world around them changes consonantly. The present lasix has only begun to make commonplace the idea that health workers do not simply treat infectious diseases, but interact with them in a range of ways, including as vector—and as a result our moral obligations in confronting them may extend beyond the immediate clinical encounter, to cover all the other ways we may contract or spread disease. But we may be responsible for disease outbreaks with conditions other than hypertension medications, and in ways beyond simply lasix ototoxicity becoming infected.

The development of an ecological conscience would show how our practices of consumption may fuel deforestation that accelerates the emergence of novel pathogens, or support intensive animal rearing that drives antibiotic resistance.18The Land Ethic also challenges us not to abstract our work away from the places in which it takes place. General practitioner surgeries and hospitals are situated within social and land communities alike, shaping and shaped by them. These spaces can be lasix ototoxicity used in ways that support or undermine those communities.

Surgeries can work to empower their communities to pursue more sustainable and healthy diets by doubling as food cooperatives, or providing resources and ‘social prescriptions’ for increased walking and cycling. Hospitals can use their extensive real estate to provide publicly accessible green and wild spaces within urban environments, and use their role as major nodes in transport infrastructure to change that infrastructure to support active travel alternatives.ivThe Land Ethic reminds us that a community (human or land) is not healthy if its flourishing cannot be sustainably maintained. An essential component of Anthropocene health justice is intergenerational justice lasix ototoxicity.

Contemporary industrialised healthcare has an unsustainable ecological footprint. Continuing with such a model lasix ototoxicity of care would serve only to mortgage the health of future generations for the sake of those living now. Ecologically conscious practice must take seriously the sorts of downstream, distributed consequences of activity that produce anthropogenic global health threats, and evaluate to what extent our most intensive healthcare practices truly serve to promote public and planetary health.

It is not enough for the clinician to assume that our resource usage is a necessary evil in the pursuit of best clinical outcomes, for it is already apparent that much of our environmental exploitation is of minimal or even negative long-term value. The work of the National Health Service (NHS) Sustainable Development Unit has seen a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the NHS from 2007 to 2015 despite an 18% increase in clinical activity,20 while different models of care used in less industrialised nations manage to provide high-quality health outcomes in less resource-intensive fashion.21ConclusionOur present problem is one of attitudes and implements lasix ototoxicity. We are remodelling the Alhambra with a steam-shovel.

We shall hardly relinquish the steam-shovel, which after all has many good points, but we are in need of gentler and more objective criteria for its successful lasix ototoxicity use. (Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’1, p 226)The moral challenges of the Anthropocene do not solely confront health workers. But the potentially catastrophic health effects of anthropogenic global environmental change, and the contribution of healthcare activity to driving these changes provide a specific and unique imperative for action from health workers.Yet it is hard to articulate this imperative in the language of contemporary clinical ethics, ill equipped for this intrusion of Gaia.

Justice in the Anthropocene lasix ototoxicity requires us to be able to adopt a perspective from which these changes no longer appear as unexpected intrusions, but that acknowledges the land community as part of our moral community. The Land Ethic articulates an understanding of justice that is holistic, structural, intergenerational, and rejects anthropocentrism. This understanding seeks not to supplant, but lasix ototoxicity to augment, our existing one.

It aims to do so by helping us to develop an ‘ecological conscience’, seeing ourselves as ‘plain member and citizen’ of the land community. The Land Ethic does not provide a step-by-step guide to just action. Nor does it definitively adjudicate on lasix ototoxicity how to balance the interests of our patients, other populations now and in the future, and the planet.

It could, however, help us on the first step towards that change—showing how to cultivate the ‘internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions’1 (pp 209–210) necessary to realise the virtues of just healthcare in the Anthropocene.AcknowledgmentsThis essay was written as a submission for the BMA Presidential Essay Prize. I am grateful to the organisers and judging panel for the opportunity..

Justice, one of the four Beauchamp and Childress http://old.brittfirearms.com/?page_id=2 prima can you buy over the counter lasix facie basic principles of biomedical ethics, is explored in two excellent papers in the current issue of the journal. The papers stem from a British Medical Association (BMA) essay competition on justice and fairness in medical practice and policy. Although the competition was open to (almost) all comers, of the 235 entries both the winning paper by Alistair Wardrope1 and the can you buy over the counter lasix highly commended runner-up by Zoe Fritz and Caitríona Cox2 were written by practising doctors—a welcome indication of the growing importance being accorded to philosophical reflection about medical practice and practices within medicine itself. Both papers are thoroughly thought provoking and represent two very different approaches to the topic. Each deserves a careful read.The competition was a component of a BMA 2019/2020 ‘Presidential project’ on fairness and justice and asked candidates to ‘use ethical reasoning and theory to tackle challenging, practical, contemporary, problems in health care and help provide a solution based on an explained and defended sense of fairness/justice’.In this guest editorial I’d like to explain why, in 2018 on becoming president-elect of the BMA, I chose the theme of justice and fairness in medical ethics for my 2019–2020 Presidential project—and why in a world of massive and ever-increasing and remediable health inequalities biomedical ethics requires greater international and interdisciplinary efforts to try to reach agreement on the need to achieve greater ‘health justice’ and to reach agreement on what that commitment actually means and on what in practice it requires.First, some background.

As president I was offered the wonderful opportunity to pursue, with the organisation’s formidable assistance, a ‘project’ consistent with the BMA’s can you buy over the counter lasix interests and values. As a hybrid of general medical practitioner and philosopher/medical ethicist, and as a firm defender of the Beauchamp and Childress four principles approach to medical ethics,3 I chose to try to raise the ethical profile of justice and fairness within medical ethics.My first objective was to ask the BMA to ask the World Medical Association (WMA) to add an explicit commitment ‘to strive to practise fairly and justly throughout my professional life’ to its contemporary version of the Hippocratic Oath—the Declaration of Geneva4—and to the companion document the International Code of Medical Ethics.5 The stimulus for this proposal was the WMA’s addition in 2017 of the principle of respect for patients’ autonomy. Important as that addition is, can you buy over the counter lasix it is widely perceived (though in my own view mistakenly) as being too much focused on individual patients and not enough on communities, groups and populations. The simple addition of a commitment to fairness and justice would provide a ‘balancing’ moral commitment.Adding the fourth principleIt would also explicitly add the fourth of those four prima facie moral commitments, increasingly widely accepted by doctors internationally. Two of them—benefiting our patients (beneficence) and doing so with as little harm as possible (non-maleficence)—have been an integral part of medical ethics since Hippocratic times.

Respect for can you buy over the counter lasix autonomy and justice are very much more recent additions to medical ethics. The WMA, having added respect for autonomy to the Declaration of Geneva, should, I proposed, complete the quartet by adding the ‘balancing’ principle of fairness and justice.Since the Declaration is unlikely to be revised for several years, it seems likely that the proposal to add to it an explicit commitment to practise fairly and justly will have to wait. However, an explicit can you buy over the counter lasix commitment to justice and fairness has, at the BMA’s request, been added to the draft of the International Code of Medical Ethics and it seems reasonable to hope and expect that it will remain in the final document.Adding a commitment to fairness and justice is the easy part!. Few doctors would on reflection deny that they ought to try to practise fairly and justly. It is far more difficult to say what is actually meant by this.

Two additional components of my Presidential project—the essay competition and a conference (which with luck will have been held, virtually, shortly before publication of this editorial)—sought to help elucidate just what is meant by practising fairly and justly.One of the most striking features of the essay competition was the readiness of many writers to point to injustices in the context can you buy over the counter lasix of medical practice and policy and describe ways of remedying them, but without giving a specific account of justice and fairness on the basis of which the diagnosis of injustice was made and the remedy offered.Wardrope’s winning essay comes close to such an approach by challenging the implied premise that an account of justice and fairness must provide some such formal theory. In preference, he points to the evident injustice and unsustainability of humans’ degradation of ‘the Land’ and its atmosphere and its inhabitants and then challenges some assumptions of contemporary philosophy and ethics, especially what he sees as their anthropocentric and individualistic focus. Instead, he invokes Leopold Aldo’s ‘Land Ethic’ (as well as drawing in aid can you buy over the counter lasix Isabelle Stenger’s focus on ‘the intrusion of Gaia’). In his thoughtful and challenging paper, he seeks to refocus our ethics—including our medical ethics and our sense of justice and fairness—on mankind’s exploitative threat, during this contemporary ‘anthropocene’ stage of evolution, to the continuing existence of humans and of all forms of life in our ‘biotic community’. As remedy, the author, allying his approach to those of contemporary virtue ethics, recommends the beneficial outcomes that would be brought about by a sense of fairness and justice—a developed and sensitive ‘ecological conscience’ as he calls it—that embraces the interests of the entire biotic community of which we humans are but a part.Fritz and Cox pursue a very different and philosophically more conventional approach to the essay competition’s question and offer a combination and development of two established philosophical theories, those of John Rawls and Thomas Scanlon, to provide a philosophically robust and practically beneficial methodology for justice and fairness in medical practice and policy.

Briefly summarised, they recommend a two-stage approach can you buy over the counter lasix for healthcare justice. First, those faced with a problem of fairness or justice in healthcare or policy should use Thomas Scanlon’s proposed contractualist approach whereby reasonable people seek solutions that they and others could not ‘reasonably reject’. This stage would involve committees of decision-makers and representatives of relevant stakeholders looking at the immediate and longer term impact on existing stakeholders of proposed solutions. They would then check those solutions against substantive criteria of justice derived from Rawls’ theory (which, via his theoretical device of the can you buy over the counter lasix ‘veil of ignorance’, Rawls and the authors argue that all reasonable people can be expected to accept!. ).

The Rawlsian criteria relied on by Fritz and Cox are equity of access can you buy over the counter lasix to healthcare. The ‘difference principle’ whereby avoidable inequalities of primary goods can only be justified if they benefit the most disadvantaged. The just savings principle, of particular importance for ensuring intergenerational justice and sustainability. And a criterion can you buy over the counter lasix of increased openness, transparency and accountability.It would of course be naïve to expect a single universalisable solution to the question ‘what do we mean by fairness and justice in health care?. €™ As the papers by Wardrope1 and Fritz and Cox2 demonstrate, there can be very wide differences of approach in well-defended accounts.

My own hope for my project is to emphasise the importance first of committing ourselves within medicine to practising fairly and justly in whatever branch we can you buy over the counter lasix practise. And then to think carefully about what we do mean by that and act accordingly.Following AristotleFor my own part, over 40 years of looking, I have not yet found a single substantive theory of justice that is plausibly universalisable and have had to content myself with Aristotle’s formal, almost content-free but probably universalisable theory, according to which equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally in proportion to the relevant inequalities—what some health economists refer to as horizontal and vertical justice or equity.6Beauchamp and Childress in their recent eighth and ‘perhaps final’ edition of their foundational ‘Principles of biomedical ethics’1 acknowledge that ‘[t]he construction of a unified theory of justice that captures our diverse conceptions and principles of justice in biomedical ethics continues to be controversial and difficult to pin down’.They still cite Aristotle’s formal principle (though with less explanation than in their first edition back in 1979) and they still believe that this formal principle requires substantive or ‘material’ content if it is to be useful in practice. They then describe six different theories of justice—four ‘traditional’ (utilitarian, libertarian, communitarian and egalitarian) and two newer theories, which they suggest may be more helpful in the context of health justice, one based on capabilities and the other on actual well-being.They again end their discussion of justice with their reminder that ‘Policies of just access to health care, strategies of efficiencies in health care institutions, and global needs for the reduction of health-impairing conditions dwarf in social importance every other issue considered in this book’ ……. €˜every society must ration its resources but can you buy over the counter lasix many societies can close gaps in fair rationing more conscientiously than they have to date’ [emphasis added]. And they go on to stress their own support for ‘recognition of global rights to health and enforceable rights to health care in nation-states’.For my own part I recommend, perhaps less ambitiously, that across the globe we extract from Aristotle’s formal theory of justice a starting point that ethically requires us to focus on equality and always to treat others as equals and treat them equally unless there are moral justifications for not doing so.

Where such justifications exist we should say what they are, explain the moral assumptions that justify them and, to the extent possible, seek the agreement of those affected.IntroductionIt did not occur to the Governor can you buy over the counter lasix that there might be more than one definition of what is good … It did not occur to him that while the courts were writing one definition of goodness in the law books, fires were writing quite another one on the face of the land. (Leopold, ‘Good Oak’1, pp 10–11)As I wrote the abstract that would become this essay, wildfires were spreading across Australia’s east coast. By the time I was invited to write the essay, back-to-back winter storms were flooding communities all around my home. The essay has been written can you buy over the counter lasix in moments of respite between shifts during the hypertension medications lasix. Every one of these events was described as ‘unprecedented’.

Yet each is becoming increasingly likely, and that due to our interactions with our environment.Public discourse surrounding these events is dominated by questions of justice and fairness. How to balance competing imperatives of can you buy over the counter lasix protecting individual lives against risk of spreading contagion. How best to allocate scarce resources like intensive care beds or mechanical ventilators. The conceptual tools of clinical ethics are can you buy over the counter lasix well tailored to these sorts of questions. The rights of the individual versus the community, issues of distributive justice—these are familiar to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with its canonical debates.What biomedical ethics has remained largely silent on is how we have been left to confront these decisions.

How human activity has eroded Earth’s life support systems to make the ‘unprecedented’ the new normal. A medical ethic fit for the Anthropocene—our (still tentative) geological epoch defined by human influence on natural systems—must be able not just to react to the consequences of our exploitation of the natural world, but reimagine our relationship with it.Those reimaginations can you buy over the counter lasix already exist, if we know where to look for them. The ‘Land Ethic’ of the US conservationist Aldo Leopold offers one such vision.i Developed over decades of experience working in and teaching land management, the Land Ethic is most famously formulated in an essay of the same name published shortly before Leopold’s death fighting a wildfire on a neighbour’s farm. It begins with a reinterpretation of the ethical relationship between humanity and the ‘land community’, can you buy over the counter lasix the ecosystems we live within and depend upon. Moving us from ‘conqueror’ to ‘plain member and citizen’ of that community1 (p 204).

Land ceases to be a resource to be exploited for human need once we view ourselves as part of, and only existing within, the land community. Our moral can you buy over the counter lasix evaluations shift consonantly:A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.1 (pp 224–225)The justice of the Land Ethic questions many presuppositions of biomedical ethics. By valuing the community in itself—in a way irreducible to the welfare of its members—it steps away from the individualism axiomatic in contemporary bioethics.2 Viewing ourselves as citizens of the land community also extends the moral horizons of healthcare from a solely human focus, taking seriously the interests of can you buy over the counter lasix the non-human members of that community. Taking into account the ‘stability’ of the community requires intergenerational justice—that we consider those affected by our actions now, and their implications for future generations.3 The resulting vision of justice in healthcare—one that takes climate and environmental justice seriously—could offer health workers an ethic fit for the future, demonstrating ways in which practice must change to do justice to patients, public and planet—now and in years to come.Healthcare in the AnthropoceneSeemeth it a small thing unto you to have fed upon good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pasture?.

And to have drunk of the clear waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?. (Ezekiel 34:18, quoted in Leopold, ‘Conservation in can you buy over the counter lasix the Southwest’4, p 94)The majority of the development of human societies worldwide—including all of recorded human history—has taken place within a single geological epoch, a roughly 11 600 yearlong period of relative warmth and climatic stability known as the Holocene. That stability, however, can no longer be taken for granted. The epoch that has sustained most of human development is giving way to one shaped by the planetary consequences of that development—the Anthropocene.The Anthropocene is marked by accelerating degradation of the ecosystems that have sustained human societies. Human activity is already can you buy over the counter lasix estimated to have raised global temperatures 1°C above preindustrial levels, and if emissions continue at current levels we are likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052.5 The global rate of species extinction is orders of magnitude higher than the average over the past 10 million years.6 Ocean acidification, deforestation and disruption of nitrogen and phosphorus flows are likely at or beyond sustainable planetary boundaries.7Yet this period has also seen rapid (if uneven) improvements in human health, with improved life expectancy, falling child mortality and falling numbers of people living in extreme poverty.

The 2015 report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health explained this dissonance in stark terms. €˜we have been mortgaging the health of future generations to realise economic and development gains in the present.’7In the instrumental can you buy over the counter lasix rationality of modernity, nature has featured only as inexhaustible resource and infinite sink to fuel social and economic ends. But this disenchanted worldview can no longer hide from the implausibility of these assumptions. It cannot resist what the philosopher Isabelle Stengers has called ‘the intrusion of Gaia’.8 The present lasix—made more likely by deforestation, land use change and biodiversity loss9—is just the most immediately salient of these intrusions. Anthropogenic environmental can you buy over the counter lasix changes are increasing undernutrition, increasing range and transmissibility of many vectorborne and waterborne diseases like dengue fever and cholera, increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events like heatwaves and wildfires, and driving population exposure to air pollution—which already accounts for over 7 million deaths annually.10These intrusions will shape healthcare in the Anthropocene.

This is because health workers will have to deal with their consequences, and because modern industrialised healthcare as practised in most high-income countries—and considered aspirational elsewhere—was borne of the same worldview that has mortgaged the health of future generations. The health sector in the USA is estimated to account for 8% of the country’s greenhouse gas footprint.11 Pharmaceutical production and waste can you buy over the counter lasix causes more local environmental degradation, accumulating in water supplies with damaging effects for local flora and fauna.12 Public health has similarly embraced short-term gains with neglect of long-term consequences. Health messaging was instrumental to the development and popularisation of many disposable and single-use products, while a 1947 report funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (who would later fund the landmark 2015 Lancet report on planetary health) popularised the high-meat, high-dairy ‘American’ diet—dependent on fossil fuel-driven intensive agricultural practices—as the healthy ideal.13Healthcare fit for the Anthropocene requires a shift in perspectives that allows us to see and work with the intrusion of Gaia. But can dominant approaches in bioethics incorporate that shift?. A perfect moral stormWe have built a beautiful piece of social machinery … which is coughing along on two cylinders because we have been too timid, and too anxious can you buy over the counter lasix for quick success, to tell the farmer the true magnitude of his obligations.

(Leopold, ‘The Ecological Conscience’4, p 341)At local, national and international scales, the lifestyles of the wealthiest pose an existential threat to the poorest and most marginalised in society. Our actions can you buy over the counter lasix now are depriving future generations of the environmental prerequisites of good health and social flourishing. If justice means, as Ranaan Gillon parses it, ‘the moral obligation to act on the basis of fair adjudication between competing claims’,14 then this state of affairs certainly seems unjust. However, the tools available for grappling with questions of justice in bioethics seem ill equipped to deal with these sorts of injustice.To illustrate this problem, consider how Gillon further fleshes out his description of justice. In terms of fair distribution of scarce can you buy over the counter lasix resources, respect for people’s rights, and respect for morally acceptable laws.

The first of these—labelled distributive justice—concerns how fairly to allot finite resources among potential beneficiaries. Classic problems of distributive justice in healthcare concern a group of people at a particular time (usually patients), who could each benefit from a particular resource (historically, discussions have often focused on transplant organs. More recently, can you buy over the counter lasix intensive care beds and ventilators have come to the fore). But there are fewer of these resources than there are people with a need for them. Such discussions are not easy, but they are at least familiar—we can you buy over the counter lasix know where to begin with them.

We can consider each party’s need, their potential to benefit from the resource, any special rights or other claims they may have to it, and so forth. The distribution of benefits and harms in the Anthropocene, however, does not comfortably fit this formalism. It is one thing to say that there is but one intensive care bed, from which Smith has a good chance of gaining another can you buy over the counter lasix year of life, Jones a poor chance, and so offer it to Smith. Another entirely to say that production of the materials consumed in Smith’s care has contributed to the degradation of scarce water supplies on the other side of the globe, or that the unsustainable pattern of energy use will affect innumerable other future persons in poorly quantifiable ways through fuelling climate change. The calculations of distributive justice are well suited to problems where there are a set pool of can you buy over the counter lasix potential beneficiaries, and the use of the scarce resources available affects only those within that pool.

But global environmental problems do not fit this pattern—the effects of our actions are spatially and temporally dispersed, so that large numbers of present and future people are affected in different ways.Nor can this problem be readily addressed by turning to Gillon’s second category of obligations of justice, those grounded in human rights. For while it might be plausible (if not entirely uncontroversial) to say that those communities whose water supplies are degraded by pharmaceutical production have a right to clean water, it is another thing entirely to say that Smith’s healthcare is directly violating that right. It would not be true to say that, were it not for the resources used in caring for can you buy over the counter lasix Smith, that the communities in question would face no threat to water security—indeed, they would likely make no appreciable difference. Similarly for the effects of Smith’s care on future generations facing accelerating environmental change.iiThe issue here is of fragmentation of agency. While it is not the case that Smith’s care is directly responsible for these can you buy over the counter lasix environmental harms, the cumulative consequences of many such acts—and the ways in which these acts are embedded in particular systems of energy generation, waste management, international trade, and so on—are reliably producing these harms.

The injustice is structural, in Iris Marion Young’s terminology—arising from the ways in which social structures constrain individuals from pursuing certain courses of action, and enable them to follow others, with side effects that cumulatively produce devastating impacts.15Gillon describes the third component of justice as respect for morally acceptable laws. But there is little reason to believe that existing legal frameworks provide sufficient guidance to address these structural injustices. While the intricacies of global governance are well beyond what I can hope to address here, the stark fact remains that, despite the international commitment of the 2015 Paris Agreement to attempt to keep global temperature rise to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that present national commitments—even if these are substantially increased in coming years—will take us well beyond that target.5 Confronted by such institutional inadequacy, respect for the rule of law is inadequate to remedy injustice.The confluence of these particular features—dispersion of can you buy over the counter lasix causes and effects, fragmentation of agency and institutional inadequacy—makes it difficult for us to reason ethically about the choices we have to make. Stephen Gardiner calls this a ‘perfect moral storm’.16 Each of these factors individually would be difficult to address using the resources of contemporary biomedical ethics. Their convergence makes it seem insurmountable.This perfect storm was not, however, unpredictable.

Van Rensselaer can you buy over the counter lasix Potter, a professor of Oncology responsible for introducing the term ‘bioethics’ into Anglophone discourse, observed that since he coined the phrase, the study of bioethics had diverged from his original usage (governing all issues at the intersection of ethics and the biological sciences) to a narrow focus on the moral dilemmas arising in interactions between individuals in biomedical contexts. Potter predicted that the short-term, individualistic and medicalised focus of this approach would result in a neglect of population-level and ecological-level issues affecting human and planetary health, with catastrophic consequences.17 His proposed solution was a new ‘global bioethics’, grounded in a new understanding of humanity’s position within planetary systems—one articulated by the Land Ethic.The Land EthicA land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.iii (Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’1, p 204)Developed throughout a career in forestry, conservation and wildlife management, the Land Ethic is less an attempt to provide a set of maxims can you buy over the counter lasix for moral action, than to shift our perspectives of the moral landscape. In his working life, Aldo Leopold witnessed how actions intended to optimise short-term economic outcomes eroded the environments on which we depend—whether soil degradation arising from intensive farming and deforestation, or disruption of freshwater ecosystems by industrial dairy farming. He also saw that contemporary morality remained silent on such actions, even when their consequences were to the collective detriment of all.Leopold argued that a series of ‘historical accidents’ left our morality particularly ill suited to handle these intrusions of Gaia—with a worldview that considered them ‘intrusions’, rather than the predictable response of our biotic community.

These ‘accidents’ can you buy over the counter lasix were. The unusual resilience of European ecological communities to anthropogenic interference (England survived an almost wholesale deforestation without consequent loss of ecosystem resilience, while similar changes elsewhere resulted in permanent environmental degradation). And the legacy of European settler colonialism, meaning that an ethic arising in these particular conditions came to dominate global social arrangements4 (p can you buy over the counter lasix 311). The first of these supported a worldview in which ‘Land … is … something to be tamed rather than something to be understood, loved, and lived with. Resources are still regarded as separate entities, indeed, as commodities, rather than as our cohabitants in the land community’4 (p 311).

The second enabled the marginalisation can you buy over the counter lasix of other views. In this genealogy, Leopold anticipated the perfect moral storm discussed above. His intent with the Land Ethic was to navigate it.There are three key components of the Land Ethic that comprise the can you buy over the counter lasix first three sections of Leopold’s final essay on the subject. (1) the ‘community concept’ that allows communities as wholes to have intrinsic value. (2) the ‘ethical sequence’ that situates the value of such communities as extending, not replacing, values assigned to individuals.

And (3) the ‘ecological conscience’ that views ethical action not in terms of following a particular code, but in developing appropriate moral perception.The community conceptThe most widely quoted passage of Leopold’s opus—already cited above, and frequently (mis)taken as a summary maxim of the ethic—states that:A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, can you buy over the counter lasix stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.1 (pp 224–225)This passage makes the primary object of our moral responsibilities ‘the biotic community’, a term Leopold uses interchangeably with the ‘land community’. Leopold’s community concept is notable in at least three respects. Its holism—an embrace of the moral significance of communities can you buy over the counter lasix in a way that is not simply reducible to the significance of its individual members. Its understanding of communities as temporally extended, placing importance on their ‘integrity’ and ‘stability’.

And its rejection of anthropocentrism, affording humanity a place as ‘plain member and citizen’ of a broader land community.Individualism is so can you buy over the counter lasix prevalent in biomedical ethics that it is scarcely argued for, instead forming part of the ‘background constellation of values’2 tacitly assumed within the field. We are used to evaluating the well-being of a community as a function of the well-being of its individual members—this is the rationale underlying quality-adjusted life year calculations endemic within health economics, and most discussions of distributive justice adopt some variation of this approach. Holism instead proposes that this makes no more sense than evaluating a person’s well-being as an aggregate of the well-being of their individual organs. While we can sensibly talk about people’s hearts, livers or can you buy over the counter lasix kidneys, their health is defined in terms of and constitutively dependent on the health of the person as a whole. Similarly, holism proposes, while individuals can be identified separately, it only makes sense to talk about them and their well-being in the context of the larger biotic community which supports and defines us.Holism helps us to negotiate the issues that confront individualistic accounts of collective well-being in Anthropocene health injustices.

In the previous section, we found in the environmental consequences can you buy over the counter lasix of industrialised healthcare that it is difficult to identify which parties in particular are harmed, and how much each individual action contributes to those harms. But our intuition that the overall result is unfair or unjust is itself a holistic assessment of the overall outcome, not dependent on our calculation of the welfare of every party involved. Holism respects the intuition that says—no matter the individuals involved—a world where people now exploit ecological resources in a fashion that deprives people in the future of the prerequisites of survival, is worse than one where communities now and in the future live in a sustainable relationship with their environment.The second aspect of Leopold’s community concept is that the community is something that does not exist at a single time and place—it is defined in terms of its development through time. Promoting the ‘integrity’ can you buy over the counter lasix and ‘stability’ of the community requires that we not just consider its immediate interests, but how that will affect its long-term sustainability or resilience. We saw earlier the difficulties in trying to say just who is harmed and how when we approach harm to future generations individualistically.

But from the perspective of the Land Ethic, when we exploit environmental resources in can you buy over the counter lasix ways that will have predictable damaging results for future generations, the object of our harm is not just some purely notional future person. It is a presently existing, temporally extended entity—the community of which they will be part.Lastly, Leopold’s community is quite consciously a biotic—not merely human—community. Leopold defines the land community as the open network of energy and mineral exchange that sustains all aspects of that network:Land… is not merely soil. It is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and can you buy over the counter lasix animals. Food chains are the living channels which conduct energy upward.

Death and decay return it to the soil. The circuit can you buy over the counter lasix is not closed. Some energy is dissipated in decay, some is added by absorption, some is stored in soils, peats, and forests, but it is a sustained circuit, like a slowly augmented revolving fund of life.4 (pp 268–269)While the components within this network may change, the land community as a whole remains stable when the overall complexity of the network is not disrupted—other components are able to adjust to these changes, or new ones arise to take their place.ivThe normative inference Leopold makes from his understanding of the land community is this. It makes no sense to single out individual can you buy over the counter lasix entities within the community as being especially valuable or useful, without taking into account the whole community upon which they mutually depend. To do so is self-defeating.

By privileging the interests of a few members of the community, we ultimately undermine the prerequisites of their existence.The ethical sequenceThe Land Ethic’s holism is in fact its most frequently critiqued feature. Its emphasis can you buy over the counter lasix on the value of the biotic community leads some to allege a subjugation of individual interests to the needs of the environment. This critique neglects how Leopold positions the Land Ethic in what he calls the ‘ethical sequence’. This is the gradual extension of scope of ethical considerations, both in terms of the complexity of social interactions they cover (from interactions between two people, to the structure of progressively larger social groups), and in the kinds can you buy over the counter lasix of person they acknowledge as worthy of moral consideration (as we resist, for example, classist, sexist or racist exclusions from personhood).This sequence serves less as a description of the history of morality, than a prescription for how we should understand the Land Ethic as adding to, rather than supplanting, our responsibilities to others. We do not argue that taking seriously health workers’ responsibilities for public health and health promotion supplants their duties to the patients they work with on a daily basis.

Similarly, the Land Ethic implies ‘respect for [our] fellow members, and also respect for the community as such’1 (p 204). At times, our responsibilities towards these different parties may can you buy over the counter lasix come into tension. But balancing these responsibilities has always been part of the work of clinical ethics.The ecological conscienceIf the community concept gives a definition of the good, and the ethical sequence situates this definition within the existing moral landscape, neither offers an explicit decision procedure to guide right action. In arguing can you buy over the counter lasix for the ‘ecological conscience’, Leopold explains his rationale for not attempting to articulate such a procedure. In his career as conservationist, Leopold witnessed time and again laws nominally introduced in the name of environmental protection that did little to achieve their long-term goals, while exacerbating other environmental threats.v This is not surprising, given the ‘perfect moral storm’ of Anthropocene global health and environmental threats discussed above.

The cumulative results of apparently innocent actions can be widespread and damaging.Leopold’s response to this problem is to advocate the cultivation of an ‘ecological conscience’. What is needed to promote a healthy human relationship with the land community is not for us to be told exactly how and how not to act in the face of environmental health threats, but rather to shift our view of the land from ‘a commodity belonging to us’ can you buy over the counter lasix towards ‘a community to which we belong’1 (p viii). To understand what the Land Ethic requires of us, therefore, we should learn more about the land community and our relationship with it, to develop our moral perception and extend its scope to embrace the non-human members of our community.Seen in this light, the Land Ethic shares much in common with virtue ethics, where right action is defined in terms of what the moral agent would do, rather than vice versa. But rather than the Eudaimonia of individual human flourishing proposed by Aristotle, the phronimos of the Land Ethic sees their telos coming from their position within the land community. While clinical virtue ethicists have traditionally taken the virtues of medical practice to be grounded in the interaction with individual patients, the realities of healthcare in the Anthropocene mean that limiting our moral perceptions can you buy over the counter lasix in this way would ultimately be self-defeating—hurting those very patients we mean to serve (and many more besides).18 The virtuous clinician must adopt a view of the moral world that can focus on a person both as an individual, and simultaneously as member of the land community.

I will close by exploring how adopting that perspective might change our practice.Justice in the AnthropoceneFailing this, it seems to me we fail in the ultimate test of our vaunted superiority—the self-control of environment. We fall back can you buy over the counter lasix into the biological category of the potato bug which exterminated the potato, and thereby exterminated itself. (Leopold, ‘The River of the Mother of God’4, p 127)I have articulated some of the challenges healthcare faces in the Anthropocene. I have suggested that the tools presently available to clinical ethics may be inadequate to meet them. The Land Ethic invites can you buy over the counter lasix us to reimagine our position in and relationship with the land community.

I want to close by suggesting how the development of an ecological conscience might support a transition to more just healthcare. I will not endeavour to give detailed prescriptions for action, can you buy over the counter lasix given Leopold’s warnings about the limitations of such codifications. Rather, I will attempt to show how the cultivation of an ecological conscience might change our perception of what justice demands. Following the tradition of virtue ethics with which the Land Ethic holds much in common, this is best achieved by looking at models of virtuous action, and exploring what makes it virtuous.19Industrialised healthcare developed within a paradigm that saw the environment as inert resource and held that the scope of clinical ethics ranged only over the clinician’s interaction with their patients. When we begin to see clinician and patient not as standing apart from the environment, but as ‘member and citizen of the land community’, their relationship with can you buy over the counter lasix one another and with the world around them changes consonantly.

The present lasix has only begun to make commonplace the idea that health workers do not simply treat infectious diseases, but interact with them in a range of ways, including as vector—and as a result our moral obligations in confronting them may extend beyond the immediate clinical encounter, to cover all the other ways we may contract or spread disease. But we may be responsible for disease outbreaks with conditions other than hypertension medications, and in ways beyond can you buy over the counter lasix simply becoming infected. The development of an ecological conscience would show how our practices of consumption may fuel deforestation that accelerates the emergence of novel pathogens, or support intensive animal rearing that drives antibiotic resistance.18The Land Ethic also challenges us not to abstract our work away from the places in which it takes place. General practitioner surgeries and hospitals are situated within social and land communities alike, shaping and shaped by them. These spaces can you buy over the counter lasix can be used in ways that support or undermine those communities.

Surgeries can work to empower their communities to pursue more sustainable and healthy diets by doubling as food cooperatives, or providing resources and ‘social prescriptions’ for increased walking and cycling. Hospitals can use their extensive real estate to provide publicly accessible green and wild spaces within urban environments, and use their role as major nodes in transport infrastructure to change that infrastructure to support active travel alternatives.ivThe Land Ethic reminds us that a community (human or land) is not healthy if its flourishing cannot be sustainably maintained. An essential can you buy over the counter lasix component of Anthropocene health justice is intergenerational justice. Contemporary industrialised healthcare has an unsustainable ecological footprint. Continuing with such can you buy over the counter lasix a model of care would serve only to mortgage the health of future generations for the sake of those living now.

Ecologically conscious practice must take seriously the sorts of downstream, distributed consequences of activity that produce anthropogenic global health threats, and evaluate to what extent our most intensive healthcare practices truly serve to promote public and planetary health. It is not enough for the clinician to assume that our resource usage is a necessary evil in the pursuit of best clinical outcomes, for it is already apparent that much of our environmental exploitation is of minimal or even negative long-term value. The work of the National Health Service (NHS) Sustainable Development Unit has seen a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the NHS from 2007 to 2015 despite an 18% increase in clinical activity,20 while different models of care used in less industrialised nations manage to provide high-quality health outcomes in can you buy over the counter lasix less resource-intensive fashion.21ConclusionOur present problem is one of attitudes and implements. We are remodelling the Alhambra with a steam-shovel. We shall hardly relinquish the steam-shovel, which can you buy over the counter lasix after all has many good points, but we are in need of gentler and more objective criteria for its successful use.

(Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’1, p 226)The moral challenges of the Anthropocene do not solely confront health workers. But the potentially catastrophic health effects of anthropogenic global environmental change, and the contribution of healthcare activity to driving these changes provide a specific and unique imperative for action from health workers.Yet it is hard to articulate this imperative in the language of contemporary clinical ethics, ill equipped for this intrusion of Gaia. Justice in the Anthropocene requires us to be able to adopt a perspective from which these changes no longer appear as unexpected intrusions, but that acknowledges the land community as part of can you buy over the counter lasix our moral community. The Land Ethic articulates an understanding of justice that is holistic, structural, intergenerational, and rejects anthropocentrism. This understanding can you buy over the counter lasix seeks not to supplant, but to augment, our existing one.

It aims to do so by helping us to develop an ‘ecological conscience’, seeing ourselves as ‘plain member and citizen’ of the land community. The Land Ethic does not provide a step-by-step guide to just action. Nor does it definitively can you buy over the counter lasix adjudicate on how to balance the interests of our patients, other populations now and in the future, and the planet. It could, however, help us on the first step towards that change—showing how to cultivate the ‘internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions’1 (pp 209–210) necessary to realise the virtues of just healthcare in the Anthropocene.AcknowledgmentsThis essay was written as a submission for the BMA Presidential Essay Prize. I am grateful to the organisers and judging panel for the opportunity..

What is Lasix?

FUROSEMIDE is a diuretic. It helps you make more urine and to lose salt and excess water from your body. Lasix is used to treat high blood pressure, and edema or swelling from heart, kidney or liver disease.

Can lasix cause afib

Although there is a long list of things he could do, even longer is the list of things http://jaymagee.com/buy-renova-over-the-counter he is being urged to undo — actions taken by President can lasix cause afib Donald Trump. While Trump was not able to make good on his highest-profile health-related promises from his 2016 campaign — including repealing the Affordable Care Act and broadly lowering prescription drug prices — his administration did make substantial changes to the nation’s health care system using executive branch authority. And many of those changes are anathema to Democrats, particularly those aimed at hobbling the ACA. For example, can lasix cause afib the Trump administration made it easier for those who buy their own insurance to purchase cheaper plans that don’t cover all the ACA benefits and may not cover preexisting conditions.

It also eliminated protections from discrimination in health care to people who are transgender. Trump’s use of tools like regulations, guidance and executive orders to modify health programs “was like an attack by a thousand paper cuts,” said Maura Calsyn, managing director of health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank. Approaching the November election, she said, “the administration was in the process of doing irreparable harm to the nation’s health care system.” Reversing many of those changes will be a can lasix cause afib big part of Biden’s health agenda, in many cases coming even before trying to act on his own campaign pledges, such as creating a government-sponsored health plan for the ACA. Chris Jennings, a health adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, said he refers to those Trump health policies as “bird droppings.

As in you have to clean up the bird droppings before you have a clean slate.” Republicans, when they take over from a Democratic administration, think of their predecessor’s policies the same way. Though changing policies made by the executive branch seems easy, that’s not always can lasix cause afib the case. €œThese are issue-by-issue determinations that must be made, and they require process evaluation, legal evaluation, resource consideration and timeliness,” said Jennings. In other words, some policies will take more time and personnel resources than others.

And health policies will have to can lasix cause afib compete for White House attention with policies the new administration will want to change on anything from the environment to immigration to education. Even within health care, issues as diverse as the operations of the ACA marketplaces, women’s reproductive health and stem cell research will vie to be high on the list. A Guide to Executive Actions Some types of actions are easier to reverse than others. Executive orders issued by the president, for example, can be can lasix cause afib summarily overturned by a new executive order.

Agency “guidance” can similarly be written over, although the Trump administration has worked to make that more onerous. Since the 1980s, for example, every time the presidency has changed parties, one of the incoming president’s first actions has been to issue an executive order to either reimpose or eliminate the “Mexico City Policy” that governs funding for international family planning organizations that “perform or promote” abortion. Why do new administrations can lasix cause afib address abortion so quickly?. Because the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court abortion decision Roe v.

Wade is two days after Inauguration Day, so the action is always politically timely. Harder to change are formal regulations, such as one effectively banning can lasix cause afib Planned Parenthood from the federal family planning program, Title X. They are governed by a law, the Administrative Procedure Act, that lays out a very specific — and often time-consuming — process. €œYou have to cross your t’s and dot your legal i’s,” said Nicholas Bagley, who teaches administrative law at the University of Michigan Law School.

And if you don’t? can lasix cause afib. Then regulations can be challenged in court — as those of the Trump administration were dozens of times. That’s something Biden officials will take pains to avoid, said Calsyn. €œI would expect to see very deliberate notice and can lasix cause afib comment rule-making, considering the reshaped judiciary” with so many Trump-appointed judges, she said.

What Comes First?. Undoing a previous administration’s actions is an exercise in trying to push many things through a very narrow tube in a short time. Department regulations have to go not just through the leadership in each department, but also through the Office of Management can lasix cause afib and Budget “for a technical review, cost-benefit analysis and legal authority,” said Bagley. €œThat can take time.” Complicating matters, many health regulations emanate not just from the Department of Health and Human Services, but jointly from HHS and other departments, including Labor and Treasury, which likely means more time to negotiate decisions among multiple departments.

Finally, said Bagley, “for really high-profile things, you’ve got to get the president’s attention, and he’s got limited time, too.” Anything lasix-related is likely to come first, he said. Some items get pushed to the front of the line because of calendar considerations, can lasix cause afib as with the abortion executive orders. Others need more immediate attention because they are part of active court cases. €œYou have all these court schedules and briefing schedules that will dictate the timeline where they make all these decisions,” said Katie Keith, a health policy researcher and law professor at Georgetown University.

The Trump administration’s efforts to allow states to set work requirements for many low-income adults who gained Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program is the highest-profile Trump action that falls into that can lasix cause afib latter category. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging HHS approval of work requirements for Arkansas and New Hampshire in the next few months. Some Democrats are concerned about how the high court, with its new conservative majority, might rule, and the Biden administration will have to move fast if officials decide they want to head off that case. But court actions also might help the Biden administration short-circuit the onerous can lasix cause afib regulatory process.

If a regulation the new administration wants to rewrite or repeal has already been blocked by a court, Biden officials can simply choose not to appeal that ruling. That’s what Trump did in ending insurance company subsidies for enrollees with low incomes in 2017. Allowing a lower-court ruling to stand, can lasix cause afib however, is not a foolproof strategy. €œThat raises the possibility of having someone [else] intervene,” said Keith.

For example, Democratic attorneys general stepped in to defend the ACA in a case now pending at the Supreme Court when the Trump administration chose not to. €œSo, you have to be pretty strategic about not appealing,” she can lasix cause afib said. Adding On?. One other big decision for the incoming administration is whether it wants to use the opportunity to tweak or add to Trump policies rather than eliminate them.

€œIs it undoing and can lasix cause afib full stop?. € asked Keith. €œOr undoing and adding on?. € She can lasix cause afib said there is “a full slate of ideologically neutral” policies Trump put out, including ones on price transparency and prescription drugs.

If Biden officials don’t want to keep those as they are, they can rewrite them and advance other policies at the same time, saving a round of regulatory effort. But none of it is easy — or fast. One big problem is just having enough bodies can lasix cause afib available to do the work. €œThere was so much that undermined and hollowed out the federal workforce.

There’s a lot of rebuilding that needs to done,” said Calsyn of the Center for American Progress. And Trump officials ran so roughshod over the regulatory process in many cases, she said, “even can lasix cause afib putting those processes back in place is going to be hard.” Incoming officials will also have other time-sensitive work to do. Writing regulations for the newly passed ban on “surprise” medical bills will almost certainly be a giant political fight between insurers and health care providers, who will try to re-litigate the legislation as it is implemented. Rules for insurers who sell policies under the ACA will need to be written almost immediately after Biden takes office.

Anyone waiting for a particular Trump can lasix cause afib policy to be wiped from the books will likely have to pack their patience. But law professor Bagley said he’s optimistic it will all get done. €œOne of the things we’ve grown unaccustomed to is a competent administration,” he said. €œWhen people are competent, they can do can lasix cause afib a lot of things pretty quickly.” Clarification.

This story was updated on Jan. 8, 2021, at 3:15 pm. ET to clarify that the Center for American Progress is nonpartisan but is can lasix cause afib a liberal-leaning think tank. Julie Rovner.

jrovner@kff.org, @jrovner Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story Tip.

The party split in Congress is so slim that, even with Democrats technically in the majority, passing major health care can you buy over the counter lasix legislation will be extremely difficult. So speculation about President-elect Joe Biden’s health agenda has focused on the things he can accomplish using executive authority. Although there is a long list of things he could do, even longer is the list of things he is being urged to undo — actions taken by President Donald Trump. While Trump was not able to make good on his highest-profile health-related promises from his 2016 campaign — including repealing the Affordable Care Act and broadly lowering prescription drug prices can you buy over the counter lasix — his administration did make substantial changes to the nation’s health care system using executive branch authority.

And many of those changes are anathema to Democrats, particularly those aimed at hobbling the ACA. For example, the Trump administration made it easier for those who buy their own insurance to purchase cheaper plans that don’t cover all the ACA benefits and may not cover preexisting conditions. It also eliminated protections can you buy over the counter lasix from discrimination in health care to people who are transgender. Trump’s use of tools like regulations, guidance and executive orders to modify health programs “was like an attack by a thousand paper cuts,” said Maura Calsyn, managing director of health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank.

Approaching the November election, she said, “the administration was in the process of doing irreparable harm to the nation’s health care system.” Reversing many of those changes will be a big part of Biden’s health agenda, in many cases coming even before trying to act on his own campaign pledges, such as creating a government-sponsored health plan for the ACA. Chris Jennings, a health adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and can you buy over the counter lasix Bill Clinton, said he refers to those Trump health policies as “bird droppings. As in you have to clean up the bird droppings before you have a clean slate.” Republicans, when they take over from a Democratic administration, think of their predecessor’s policies the same way. Though changing policies made by the executive branch seems easy, that’s not always the case.

€œThese are can you buy over the counter lasix issue-by-issue determinations that must be made, and they require process evaluation, legal evaluation, resource consideration and timeliness,” said Jennings. In other words, some policies will take more time and personnel resources than others. And health policies will have to compete for White House attention with policies the new administration will want to change on anything from the environment to immigration to education. Even within can you buy over the counter lasix health care, issues as diverse as the operations of the ACA marketplaces, women’s reproductive health and stem cell research will vie to be high on the list.

A Guide to Executive Actions Some types of actions are easier to reverse than others. Executive orders issued by the president, for example, can be summarily overturned by a new executive order. Agency “guidance” can similarly be written over, although the Trump administration has worked to make can you buy over the counter lasix that more onerous. Since the 1980s, for example, every time the presidency has changed parties, one of the incoming president’s first actions has been to issue an executive order to either reimpose or eliminate the “Mexico City Policy” that governs funding for international family planning organizations that “perform or promote” abortion.

Why do new administrations address abortion so quickly?. Because the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court abortion decision Roe v can you buy over the counter lasix. Wade is two days after Inauguration Day, so the action is always politically timely. Harder to change are formal regulations, such as one effectively banning Planned Parenthood from the federal family planning program, Title X.

They are governed by a law, the Administrative Procedure Act, that lays out a can you buy over the counter lasix very specific — and often time-consuming — process. €œYou have to cross your t’s and dot your legal i’s,” said Nicholas Bagley, who teaches administrative law at the University of Michigan Law School. And if you don’t?. Then regulations can be challenged in court — as those of the Trump administration were dozens can you buy over the counter lasix of times.

That’s something Biden officials will take pains to avoid, said Calsyn. €œI would expect to see very deliberate notice and comment rule-making, considering the reshaped judiciary” with so many Trump-appointed judges, she said. What Comes can you buy over the counter lasix First?. Undoing a previous administration’s actions is an exercise in trying to push many things through a very narrow tube in a short time.

Department regulations have to go not just through the leadership in each department, but also through the Office of Management and Budget “for a technical review, cost-benefit analysis and legal authority,” said Bagley. €œThat can can you buy over the counter lasix take time.” Complicating matters, many health regulations emanate not just from the Department of Health and Human Services, but jointly from HHS and other departments, including Labor and Treasury, which likely means more time to negotiate decisions among multiple departments. Finally, said Bagley, “for really high-profile things, you’ve got to get the president’s attention, and he’s got limited time, too.” Anything lasix-related is likely to come first, he said. Some items get pushed to the front of the line because of calendar considerations, as with the abortion executive orders.

Others need more can you buy over the counter lasix immediate attention because they are part of active court cases. €œYou have all these court schedules and briefing schedules that will dictate the timeline where they make all these decisions,” said Katie Keith, a health policy researcher and law professor at Georgetown University. The Trump administration’s efforts to allow states to set work requirements for many low-income adults who gained Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program is the highest-profile Trump action that falls into that latter category. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging HHS approval of work requirements for Arkansas and New Hampshire in the next few months can you buy over the counter lasix.

Some Democrats are concerned about how the high court, with its new conservative majority, might rule, and the Biden administration will have to move fast if officials decide they want to head off that case. But court actions also might help the Biden administration short-circuit the onerous regulatory process. If a regulation the new administration wants to rewrite or repeal has already been blocked by a court, Biden officials can simply can you buy over the counter lasix choose not to appeal that ruling. That’s what Trump did in ending insurance company subsidies for enrollees with low incomes in 2017.

Allowing a lower-court ruling to stand, however, is not a foolproof strategy. €œThat raises the possibility of having someone [else] intervene,” can you buy over the counter lasix said Keith. For example, Democratic attorneys general stepped in to defend the ACA in a case now pending at the Supreme Court when the Trump administration chose not to. €œSo, you have to be pretty strategic about not appealing,” she said.

Adding On? can you buy over the counter lasix. One other big decision for the incoming administration is whether it wants to use the opportunity to tweak or add to Trump policies rather than eliminate them. €œIs it undoing and full stop?. € asked can you buy over the counter lasix Keith.

€œOr undoing and adding on?. € She said there is “a full slate of ideologically neutral” policies Trump put out, including ones on price transparency and prescription drugs. If Biden officials don’t want to keep those can you buy over the counter lasix as they are, they can rewrite them and advance other policies at the same time, saving a round of regulatory effort. But none of it is easy — or fast.

One big problem is just having enough bodies available to do the work. €œThere was so much that undermined and hollowed can you buy over the counter lasix out the federal workforce. There’s a lot of rebuilding that needs to done,” said Calsyn of the Center for American Progress. And Trump officials ran so roughshod over the regulatory process in many cases, she said, “even putting those processes back in place is going to be hard.” Incoming officials will also have other time-sensitive work to do.

Writing regulations for the newly can you buy over the counter lasix passed ban on “surprise” medical bills will almost certainly be a giant political fight between insurers and health care providers, who will try to re-litigate the legislation as it is implemented. Rules for insurers who sell policies under the ACA will need to be written almost immediately after Biden takes office. Anyone waiting for a particular Trump policy to be wiped from the books will likely have to pack their patience. But law professor Bagley said he’s optimistic it can you buy over the counter lasix will all get done.

€œOne of the things we’ve grown unaccustomed to is a competent administration,” he said. €œWhen people are competent, they can do a lot of things pretty quickly.” Clarification. This story was updated can you buy over the counter lasix on Jan. 8, 2021, at 3:15 pm.

ET to clarify that the Center for American Progress is nonpartisan but is a liberal-leaning think tank.

Lasix 40mg ivp bid and dc foley

WASHINGTON — Even before there was a treatment, some seasoned doctors and public health experts warned, Cassandra-like, that its distribution would be “a logistical http://saiautomationsystem.com/where-to-buy-generic-cipro/ nightmare.” After Week lasix 40mg ivp bid and dc foley 1 of the rollout, “nightmare” sounds like an apt description. Dozens of states say they didn’t receive nearly the number of promised doses. Pfizer says millions of doses sat in its storerooms, because no one from President Donald lasix 40mg ivp bid and dc foley Trump’s Operation Warp Speed task force told them where to ship them. A number of states have few sites that can handle the ultra-cold storage required for the Pfizer product, so, for example, front-line workers in Georgia have had to travel 40 minutes to get a shot.

At some hospitals, residents treating hypertension medications patients protested that they had not received the treatment while administrators did, even though they work from home and don’t treat patients. The potential for more chaos is lasix 40mg ivp bid and dc foley high. Dr. Vivek Murthy, named as the next surgeon general under President-elect Joe Biden, said this week that the Trump administration’s prediction — that the general population would get the treatment in April — was realistic only if everything went smoothly.

He instead predicted wide distribution by lasix 40mg ivp bid and dc foley summer or fall. The Trump administration had expressed confidence that the rollout would be smooth, because it was being overseen by a four-star general, Gustave Perna, an expert in logistics. But it turns out that getting fuel, tanks and tents into war-torn mountainous Afghanistan is in many ways simpler than passing out a treatment in our privatized, profit-focused and highly fragmented medical system. Gen.

Perna apologized this week, saying he wanted to “take personal responsibility.” It’s really mostly not his fault. Throughout the hypertension medications lasix, the U.S. Health care system has shown that it is not built for a coordinated lasix response (among many other things). States took wildly different hypertension medications prevention measures.

Individual hospitals varied in their ability to face this kind of national disaster. And there were huge regional disparities in test availability — with a slow ramp-up in availability due, at least in some part, because no payment or billing mechanism was established. Why should treatment distribution be any different?. In World War II, toymakers were conscripted to make needed military hardware airplane parts, and commercial shipyards to make military transport vessels.

The Trump administration has been averse to invoking the Defense Production Act, which could help speed and coordinate the process of treatment manufacture and distribution. On Tuesday, it indicated it might do so, but only to help Pfizer obtain raw materials that are in short supply, so that the drugmaker could produce — and sell — more treatments in the United States. Instead of a central health-directed strategy, we have multiple companies competing to capture their financial piece of the lasix health care pie, each with its patent-protected product as well as its own supply chain and shipping methods. Add to this bedlam the current decision-tree governing distribution.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made official recommendations about who should get the treatment first — but throughout the lasix, many states have felt free to ignore the agency’s suggestions. Instead, Operation Warp Speed allocated initial doses to the states, depending on population. From there, an inscrutable mix of state officials, public health agencies and lobbyists seem to be determining where the treatment should go. In some states, counties requested an allotment from the state, and then they tried to accommodate requests from hospitals, which made their individual algorithms for how to dole out the precious cargo.

Once it became clear there wasn’t enough treatment to go around, each entity made its own adjustments. Some doses are being shipped by FedEx or UPS. But Pfizer — which did not fully participate in Operation Warp Speed — is shipping much of the treatment itself. In nursing homes, some treatments will be delivered and administered by employees of CVS and Walgreens, though issues of staffing and consent remain there.

The Moderna treatment, rolling out this week, will be packaged by the “pharmaceutical services provider” Catalent in Bloomington, Indiana, and then sent to McKesson, a large pharmaceutical logistics and distribution outfit. It has offices in places like Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, which are near air hubs for FedEx and UPS, which will ship them out. Is your head spinning yet?. Looking forward, basic questions remain for 2021.

How will essential workers at some risk (transit workers, teachers, grocery store employees) know when it’s their turn?. (And it will matter which city you work in.) What about people with chronic illness — and then everyone else?. And who administers the treatment — doctors or the local drugstore?. In Belgium, where many hospitals and doctors are private but work within a significant central organization, residents will get an invitation letter “when it’s their turn.” In Britain, the National Joint Committee on Vaccination has settled on a priority list for vaccinations — those over 80, those who live or work in nursing homes, and health care workers at high risk.

The National Health Service will let everyone else “know when it’s your turn to get the treatment ” from the government-run health system. In the United States, I dread a mad scramble — as in, “Did you hear the CVS on P Street got a shipment?. € But this time, it’s not toilet paper. Combine this vision of disorder with the nation’s high death toll, and it’s not surprising that there is intense jockeying and lobbying — by schools, unions, even people with different types of preexisting diseases — over who should get the treatment first, second and third.

It’s hard to “wait your turn” in a country where there are 200,000 new cases and as many as 2,000 new daily hypertension medications deaths — a tragic per capita order of magnitude higher than in many other developed countries. So kudos and thanks to the science and the scientists who made the treatment in record time. I’ll eagerly hold out my arm — so I can see the family and friends and colleagues I’ve missed all these months. If only I can figure out when I’m eligible, and where to go to get it.

Elisabeth Rosenthal. erosenthal@kff.org, @rosenthalhealth Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story TipMore than 2,900 U.S. Health care workers have died in the hypertension medications lasix since March, a far higher number than that reported by the government, according to a new analysis by KHN and The Guardian. Fatalities from the hypertension have skewed young, with the majority of victims under age 60 in the cases for which there is age data.

People of color have been disproportionately affected, accounting for about 65% of deaths in cases in which there is race and ethnicity data. After conducting interviews with relatives and friends of around 300 victims, KHN and The Guardian learned that one-third of the fatalities involved concerns over inadequate personal protective equipment. Many of the deaths — about 680 — occurred in New York and New Jersey, which were hit hard early in the lasix. Significant numbers also died in Southern and Western states in the ensuing months.

The findings are part of “Lost on the Frontline,” a nine-month data and investigative project by KHN and The Guardian to track every health care worker who dies of hypertension medications. One of those lost, Vincent DeJesus, 39, told his brother Neil that he’d be in deep trouble if he spent much time with a hypertension medications-positive patient while wearing the surgical mask provided to him by the Las Vegas hospital where he worked. DeJesus died on Aug. 15.

Another fatality was Sue Williams-Ward, a 68-year-old home health aide who earned $13 an hour in Indianapolis, and bathed, dressed and fed clients without wearing any PPE, her husband said. She was intubated for six weeks before she died May 2. €œLost on the Frontline” is prompting new government action to explore the root cause of health care worker deaths and take steps to track them better. Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services recently asked the National Academy of Sciences for a “rapid expert consultation” on why so many health care workers are dying in the U.S., citing the count of fallen workers by The Guardian and KHN.

€œThe question is, where are they becoming infected?. € asked Michael Osterholm, a member of President-elect Joe Biden’s hypertension medications advisory team and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. €œThat is clearly a critical issue we need to answer and we don’t have that.” [embedded content] The Dec. 10 report by the national academies suggests a new federal tracking system and specially trained contact tracers who would take PPE policies and availability into consideration.

Doing so would add critical knowledge that could inform generations to come and give meaning to the lives lost. €œThose [health care workers] are people who walked into places of work every day because they cared about patients, putting food on the table for families, and every single one of those lives matter,” said Sue Anne Bell, a University of Michigan assistant professor of nursing and co-author of the national academies report. The recommendations come at a fraught moment for health care workers, as some are getting the hypertension medications treatment while others are fighting for their lives amid the highest levels of the nation has seen. The toll continues to mount.

In Indianapolis, for example, 41-year-old nurse practitioner Kindra Irons died Dec. 1. She saw seven or eight home health patients per week while wearing full PPE, including an N95 mask and a face shield, according to her husband, Marcus Irons. The lasix destroyed her lungs so badly that six weeks on the most aggressive life support equipment, ECMO, couldn’t save her, he said.

Marcus Irons said he is now struggling financially to support their two youngest children, ages 12 and 15. €œNobody should have to go through what we’re going through,” he said. In Massachusetts, 43-year-old Mike “Flynnie” Flynn oversaw transportation and laundry services at North Shore Medical Center, a hospital in Salem, Massachusetts. He and his wife were also raising young children, ages 8, 10 and 11.

Flynn, who shone at father-daughter dances, fell ill in late November and died Dec. 8. He had a heart attack at home on the couch, according to his father, Paul Flynn. A hospital spokesperson said he had full access to PPE and free testing on-site.

Since the first months of the lasix, more than 70 reporters at The Guardian and KHN have scrutinized numerous governmental and public data sources, interviewed the bereaved and spoken with health care experts to build a count. The total number includes fatalities identified by labor unions, obituaries and news outlets and in online postings by the bereaved, as well as by relatives of the deceased. The previous total announced by The Guardian and KHN was approximately 1,450 health care worker deaths. The new number reflects the inclusion of data reported by nursing homes and health facilities to the federal and state governments.

These deaths include the facility names but not worker names. Reporters cross-checked each record to ensure fatalities did not appear in the database twice. The tally has been widely cited by other media as well as by members of Congress. Rep.

Norma Torres (D-Calif.) referenced the data citing the need for a pending bill that would provide compensation to the families of health care workers who died or sustained long-term disabilities from hypertension medications. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) mentioned the tally in a Senate Finance Committee hearing about the medical supply chain. €œThe fact is,” he said, “the shortages of PPE have put our doctors and nurses and caregivers in grave danger.” This story is part of “Lost on the Frontline,” an ongoing project from The Guardian and Kaiser Health News that aims to document the lives of health care workers in the U.S.

Who die from hypertension medications, and to investigate why so many are victims of the disease. If you have a colleague or loved one we should include, please share their story. Christina Jewett. ChristinaJ@kff.org, @by_cjewett Melissa Bailey.

@mmbaily Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story TipWorkers at Garfield Medical Center in suburban Los Angeles were on edge as the lasix ramped up in March and April. Staffers in a 30-patient unit were rationing a single tub of sanitizing wipes all day. A May memo from the CEO said N95 masks could be cleaned up to 20 times before replacement. Patients showed up hypertension medications-negative but some still developed symptoms a few days later.

Contact tracing took the form of texts and whispers about exposures. By summer, frustration gave way to fear. At least 60 staff members at the 210-bed community hospital caught hypertension medications, according to records obtained by KHN and interviews with eight staff members and others familiar with hospital operations. The first to die was Dawei Liang, 60, a quiet radiology technician who never said no when a colleague needed help.

A cardiology technician became infected and changed his final wishes — agreeing to intubation — hoping for more years to dote on his grandchildren. Few felt safe. Ten months into the lasix, it has become far clearer why tens of thousands of health care workers have been infected by the lasix and why so many have died. Dire PPE shortages.

Limited hypertension medications tests. Sparse tracking of viral spread. Layers of flawed policies handed down by health care executives and politicians, and lax enforcement by government regulators. All of those breakdowns, across cities and states, have contributed to the deaths of more than 2,900 health care workers, a nine-month investigation by over 70 reporters at KHN and The Guardian has found.

This number is far higher than that reported by the U.S. Government, which does not have a comprehensive national count of health care workers who’ve died of hypertension medications. The fatalities have skewed young, with the majority of victims under age 60 in the cases for which there is age data. People of color have been disproportionately affected, accounting for about 65% of deaths in cases in which there is race and ethnicity data.

After conducting interviews with relatives and friends of around 300 victims, KHN and The Guardian learned that one-third of the fatalities involved concerns over inadequate personal protective equipment. Many of the deaths occurred in New York and New Jersey, and significant numbers also died in Southern and Western states as the lasix wore on. Workers at well-funded academic medical centers — hubs of policymaking clout and prestigious research — were largely spared. Those who died tended to work in less prestigious community hospitals like Garfield, nursing homes and other health centers in roles in which access to critical information was low and patient contact was high.

Garfield Medical Center and its parent company, AHMC Healthcare, did not respond to multiple calls or emails regarding workers’ concerns and circumstances leading to the worker deaths. So as 2020 draws to a close, we ask. Did so many of the nation’s health care workers have to die?. New York’s Warning for the Nation The seeds of the crisis can be found in New York and the surrounding cities and suburbs.

It was the region where the profound risks facing medical staff became clear. And it was here where the most died. As the lasix began its U.S. Surge, city paramedics were out in force, their sirens cutting through eerily empty streets as they rushed patients to hospitals.

Carlos Lizcano, a blunt Queens native who had been with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) for two decades, was one of them. He was answering four to five cardiac arrest calls every shift. Normally he would have fielded that many in a month. He remembered being stretched so thin he had to enlist a dying man’s son to help with CPR.

On another call, he did chest compressions on a 33-year-old woman as her two small children stood in the doorway of a small apartment. €œI just have this memory of those kids looking at us like, ‘What’s going on?. €™â€ After the young woman died, Lizcano went outside and punched the ambulance in frustration and grief. The personal risks paramedics faced were also grave.

More than 40% of emergency medical service workers in the FDNY went on leave for confirmed or suspected hypertension during the first three months of the lasix, according to a study by the department’s chief medical officer and others. In fact, health care workers were three times more likely than the general public to get hypertension medications, other researchers found. And the risks were not equally spread among medical professions. Initially, CDC guidelines were written to afford the highest protection to workers in a hospital’s hypertension medications unit.

Yet months later, it was clear that the doctors initially thought to be at most risk — anesthesiologists and those working in the intensive care unit — were among the least likely to die. This could be due to better personal protective equipment or patients being less infectious by the time they reach the ICU. Instead, scientists discovered that “front door” health workers like paramedics and those in acute-care “receiving” roles — such as in the emergency room — were twice as likely as other health care workers to be hospitalized with hypertension medications. [embedded content] For FDNY’s first responders, part of the problem was having to ration and reuse masks.

Workers were blind to an invisible threat that would be recognized months later. The lasix spread rapidly from pre-symptomatic people and among those with no symptoms at all. In mid-March, Lizcano was one of thousands of FDNY first responders infected with hypertension medications. At least four of them died, city records show.

They were among the 679 health care workers who have died in New York and New Jersey to date, most at the height of the terrible first wave of the lasix. €œInitially, we didn’t think it was this bad,” Lizcano said, recalling the confusion and chaos of the early lasix. €œThis city wasn’t prepared.” Neither was the rest of the country. An Elusive Enemy The lasix continued to spread like a ghost through the nation and proved deadly to workers who were among the first to encounter sick patients in their hospital or nursing home.

One government agency had a unique vantage point into the problem but did little to use its power to cite employers — or speak out about the hazards. Health employers had a mandate to report worker deaths and hospitalizations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. When they did so, the report went to an agency headed by Eugene Scalia, son of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who died in 2016. The younger Scalia had spent part of his career as a corporate lawyer fighting the very agency he was charged with leading.

Its inspectors have documented instances in which some of the most vulnerable workers — those with low information and high patient contact — faced incredible hazards, but OSHA’s staff did little to hold employers to account. Beaumont, Texas, a town near the Louisiana border, was largely untouched by the lasix in early April. That’s when a 56-year-old physical therapy assistant at Christus Health’s St. Elizabeth Hospital named Danny Marks called in sick with a fever and body aches, federal OSHA records show.

He told a human resources employee that he’d been in the room of a patient who was receiving a breathing treatment — the type known as the most hazardous to health workers. The CDC advises that N95 respirators be used by all in the room for the so-called aerosol-generating procedures. (A facility spokesperson said the patient was not known or suspected to have hypertension medications at the time Marks entered the room.) Marks went home to self-isolate. By April 17, he was dead.

The patient whose room Marks entered later tested positive for hypertension medications. And an OSHA investigation into Marks’ death found there was no sign on the door to warn him that a potentially infected patient was inside, nor was there a cart outside the room where he could grab protective gear. The facility did not have a universal masking policy in effect when Marks went in the room, and it was more than likely that he was not wearing any respiratory protection, according to a copy of the report obtained through a public records request. Twenty-one more employees contracted hypertension medications by the time he died.

€œHe was a beloved gentleman and friend and he is missed very much,” Katy Kiser, Christus’ public relations director, told KHN. OSHA did not issue a citation to the facility, instead recommending safety changes. The agency logged nearly 8,700 complaints from health care workers in 2020. Yet Harvard researchers found that some of those desperate pleas for help, often decrying shortages of PPE, did little to forestall harm.

In fact, they concluded that surges in those complaints preceded increases in deaths among working-age adults 16 days later. One report author, Peg Seminario, blasted OSHA for failing to use its power to get employers’ attention about the danger facing health workers. She said issuing big fines in high-profile cases can have a broad impact — except OSHA has not done so. €œThere’s no accountability for failing to protect workers from exposure to this deadly lasix,” said Seminario, a former union health and safety official.

Desperate for Safety Gear There was little outward sign this summer that Garfield Medical Center was struggling to contain hypertension medications. While Medicare has forced nursing homes to report staff s and deaths, no such requirement applies to hospitals. More 'Lost on the Frontline' Stories Dying Young. The Health Care Workers in Their 20s Killed by hypertension medications By Alastair Gee, The Guardian | August 13, 2020A database of deaths compiled by KHN and The Guardian includes a significant minority under 30, leaving shattered dreams and devastated families.(Photo Credit.

The Obra family)Most Home Health Aides ‘Can’t Afford Not to Work’ — Even When Lacking PPEBy Eli Cahan | October 16, 2020Home health aides flattened the curve by keeping the most vulnerable patients — seniors, the disabled, the infirm — out of hospitals. But they’ve done it mostly at poverty wages and without overtime pay, hazard pay, sick leave or health insurance.(Photo Credit. Tamarya Burnett)They Cared for Some of New York’s Most Vulnerable Communities. Then 12 Died.By Danielle Renwick, The Guardian | August 27, 2020Immigrant health workers help keep the U.S.

Health system afloat — and they’re dying of hypertension medications at high rates.(Photo Credit. Pablo Monsalve/VIEWpress via Getty Images)These Front-Line Workers Could Have Retired. They Risked Their Lives Instead. By Shoshana Dubnow | November 20, 2020 An investigation by KHN and The Guardian shows that 329 health care workers age 65 or older have reportedly died of hypertension medications.(Photo Credits.

Tom Miles, David Brown, Bethany MacDonald) Yet as the focus of the lasix moved from the East Coast in the spring to Southern and Western states, health care worker deaths climbed. And behind the scenes at Garfield, workers were dealing with a lack of equipment meant to keep them safe. Complaints to state worker-safety officials filed in March and April said Garfield Medical Center workers were asked to reuse the same N95 respirator for a week. Another complaint said workers ran out of medical gowns and were directed to use less-protective gowns typically provided to patients.

Staffers were shaken by the death of Dawei Liang. And only after his death and a rash of s did Garfield provide N95 masks to more workers and put up plastic tarps to block a hypertension medications unit from an adjacent ward. Yet this may have been too late. The hypertension can easily spread to every corner of a hospital.

Researchers in South Africa traced a single ER patient to 119 cases in a hospital — 80 among staff members. Those included 62 nurses from neurology, surgical and general medical units that typically would not have housed hypertension medications patients. By late July, Garfield cardiac and respiratory technician Thong Nguyen, 73, learned he was hypertension medications-positive days after he collapsed at work. Nguyen loved his job and was typically not one to complain, said his youngest daughter, Dinh Kozuki.

A 34-year veteran at the hospital, he was known for conducting medical tests in multiple languages. His colleagues teased him, saying he was never going to retire. Kozuki said her father spoke up in March about the rationing of protective gear, but his concerns were not allayed. Dinh Kozuki’s father, Thong Nguyen, died of hypertension medications-related complications after nearly 35 years of service at Garfield Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Nguyen’s supervisor told him he’d have to reuse personal protective equipment. €œHe definitely should not have passed [away],” Kozuki said.(Heidi de Marco / KHN) The PPE problems at Garfield were a symptom of a broader problem. As the lasix spread around the nation, chronic shortages of protective gear left many workers in community-based settings fatally exposed. Nearly 1 in 3 family members or friends of around 300 health care workers interviewed by KHN or The Guardian expressed concerns about a fallen workers’ PPE.

Health care workers’ labor unions asked for the more-protective N95 respirators when the lasix began. But Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines said the unfitted surgical masks worn by workers who feed, bathe and lift hypertension medications patients were adequate amid supply shortages. Mary Turner, an ICU nurse and president of the Minnesota Nurses Association, said she protested alongside nurses all summer demanding better protective gear, which she said was often kept from workers because of supply-chain shortages and the lack of political will to address them. €œIt shouldn’t have to be that way,” Turner said.

€œWe shouldn’t have to beg on the streets for protection during a lasix.” At Garfield, it was even hard to get tested. Critical care technician Tony Ramirez said he started feeling ill on July 12. He had an idea of how he might have been exposed. He’d cleaned up urine and feces of a patient suspected of having hypertension medications and worked alongside two staffers who also turned out to be hypertension medications-positive.

At the time, he’d been wearing a surgical mask and was worried it didn’t protect him. Yet he was denied a free test at the hospital, and went on his own time to Dodger Stadium to get one. His positive result came back a few days later. As Ramirez rested at home, he texted Alex Palomo, 44, a Garfield medical secretary who was also at home with hypertension medications, to see how he was doing.

Palomo was the kind of man who came to many family parties but would often slip away unseen. A cousin finally asked him about it. Palomo said he just hated to say goodbye. Palomo would wear only a surgical mask when he would go into the rooms of patients with flashing call lights, chat with them and maybe bring them a refill of water, Ramirez said.

Paramedics work behind an ambulance at the Garfield Medical Center in Monterey Park, California, on March 19. (Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images) Ramirez said Palomo had no access to patient charts, so he would not have known which patients had hypertension medications. €œIn essence, he was helping blindly.” Palomo never answered the text.

He died of hypertension medications on Aug. 14. And Thong Nguyen had fared no better. His daughter, a hospital pharmacist in Fresno, had pressed him to go on a ventilator after seeing other patients survive with the treatment.

It might mean he could retire and watch his grandkids grow up. But it made no difference. €œHe definitely should not have passed [away],” Kozuki said. Nursing Homes Devastated During the summer, as nursing homes recovered from their spring surge, Heather Pagano got a new assignment.

The Doctors Without Borders adviser on humanitarianism had been working in cholera clinics in Nigeria. In May, she arrived in southeastern Michigan to train nursing home staffers on optimal -control techniques. Federal officials required worker death reports from nursing homes, which by December tallied more than 1,100 fatalities. Researchers in Minnesota found particular hazards for these health workers, concluding they were the ones most at risk of getting hypertension medications.

Pagano learned that staffers were repurposing trash bin liners and going to the local Sherwin-Williams store for painting coveralls to backfill shortages of medical gowns. The least-trained clinical workers — nursing assistants — were doing the most hazardous jobs, turning and cleaning patients, and brushing their teeth. She said nursing home leaders were shuffling reams of federal, state and local guidelines yet had little understanding of how to stop the lasix from spreading. €œNo one sent trainers to show people what to do, practically speaking,” she said.

As the lasix wore on, nursing homes reported staff shortages getting worse by the week. Few wanted to put their lives on the line for $13 an hour, the wage for nursing assistants in many parts of the U.S. The organization GetusPPE, formed by doctors to address shortages, saw almost all requests for help were coming from nursing homes, doctors’ offices and other non-hospital facilities. Only 12% of the requests could be fulfilled, its October report said.

And a lasix-weary and science-wary public has fueled the lasix’s spread. In fact, whether or not a nursing home was properly staffed played only a small role in determining its susceptibility to a lethal outbreak, University of Chicago public health professor Tamara Konetzka found. The crucial factor was whether there was widespread viral transmission in the surrounding community. €œIn the end, the story has pretty much stayed the same,” Konetzka said.

€œNursing homes in lasix hot spots are at high risk and there’s very little they can do to keep the lasix out.” The treatment Arrives From March through November, 40 complaints were filed about the Garfield Medical Center with the California Department of Public Health, nearly three times the statewide average for the time. State officials substantiated 11 complaints and said they are part of an ongoing inspection. For Thanksgiving, AHMC Healthcare Chairman Jonathan Wu sent hospital staffers a letter thanking “frontline healthcare workers who continue to serve, selflessly exposing themselves to the lasix so that others may cope, recover and survive.” The letter made no mention of the workers who had died. €œA lot of people were upset by that,” said critical care technician Melissa Ennis.

€œI was upset.” By December, all workers were required to wear an N95 respirator in every corner of the hospital, she said. Ennis said she felt unnerved taking it off. She took breaks to eat and drink in her car. Garfield said on its website that it is screening patients for the lasix and will “implement prevention and control practices to protect our patients, visitors, and staff.” On Dec.

9, Ennis received notice that the treatment was on its way to Garfield. Nationwide, the treatment brought health workers relief from months of tension. Nurses and doctors posted photos of themselves weeping and holding their small children. At the same time, it proved too late for some.

A new surge of deaths drove the toll among health workers to more than 2,900. And before Ennis could get the shot, she learned she would have to wait at least a few more days, until she could get a hypertension medications test. She found out she’d been exposed to the lasix by a colleague. Shoshana Dubnow and Anna Sirianni contributed to this report.

Video by Hannah Norman. Web production by Lydia Zuraw. This story is part of “Lost on the Frontline,” an ongoing project from The Guardian and Kaiser Health News that aims to document the lives of health care workers in the U.S. Who die from hypertension medications, and to investigate why so many are victims of the disease.

If you have a colleague or loved one we should include, please share their story. Christina Jewett. ChristinaJ@kff.org, @by_cjewett Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story TipJournalists from KHN and The Guardian have identified 2,921 workers who reportedly died of complications from hypertension medications after they contracted it on the job. Reporters are working to confirm the cause of death and workplace conditions in each case.

They are also writing about the people behind the statistics — their personalities, passions and quirks — and telling the story of every life lost.Explore the new interactive tool tracking those health worker deaths.(Note. The previous total announced by The Guardian and KHN was approximately 1,450 health care worker deaths. The new number reflects the inclusion of data reported by nursing homes and health facilities to the federal and state governments. These deaths include the facility names but not worker names.

Reporters cross-checked each record to ensure fatalities did not appear in the database twice.) More From This Series. Related Topics Health Industry hypertension medications Doctors Investigation Lost On The Frontline Nursing HomesCan’t see the audio player?. Click here to listen on SoundCloud. hypertension medications was the dominant — but not the only — health policy story of 2020.

In this special year-in-review episode of KHN’s “What the Health?. € podcast, panelists look back at some of the biggest non-hypertension stories. Those included Supreme Court cases on the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid work requirements and abortion, as well as a year-end surprise ending to the “surprise bill” saga. This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of Politico, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News and Sarah Karlin-Smith of Pink Sheet.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast. The hypertension lasix strengthened the hand of ACA supporters, even as the Trump administration sought to get the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health law. Many people felt it was an inopportune time to get rid of that safety valve while so many Americans were losing their jobs — and their health insurance — due to the economic chaos from the lasix.Preliminary enrollment numbers released by federal officials last week suggest that more people were taking advantage of the option to buy coverage for 2021 through the ACA marketplaces than for 2020, even in the absence of enrollment encouragement from the federal government.The ACA’s Medicaid expansion had a bit of a roller-coaster ride this year. Voters in two more states — Oklahoma and Missouri — approved the expansion in ballot measures, but the Trump administration continued its support of state plans that require many adults to prove they are working in order to continue their coverage.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to that policy. Although lower courts have ruled that the Medicaid law does not allow such restrictions, it’s not clear how the new conservative majority on the court will view this issue.Concerns are beginning to grow in Washington about the near-term prospect of the Medicare trust fund going insolvent. That can likely be fixed only with a remedy adopted by Congress, and that may not happen unless lawmakers feel a crisis is very near.The Trump administration has sought to bring down drug out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare beneficiaries. Among those initiatives is a demonstration project to lower the cost of insulin.

About a third of Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in plans that offer reduced prices in 2021. But the effort could have a hidden consequence. Higher insurance premiums.Many members of Congress began this session two years ago with grand promises of working to lower drug prices — but they never reached an agreement on how to do it.President Donald Trump, however, was strongly motivated by the issue and late this year issued an order to set many Medicare drug prices based on what is paid in other industrialized nations. Drugmakers detest the idea and have vowed to fight it in court.

Although some Democrats endorse the concept, it seems unlikely that President-elect Joe Biden would want to spend much capital in a legal battle for a plan that hasn’t been carefully vetted.The gigantic spending and hypertension medications relief bill that Congress finally approved Monday includes a provision to protect consumers from surprise medical bills when they are unknowingly treated by doctors or hospitals outside their insurance network. The law sets up a mediation process to resolve the charges, but the process favors the doctors. Insurers are likely to pass along any extra costs to consumers through higher premiums. To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health?. on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, Spotify, or Pocket Casts. Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story Tip.

WASHINGTON — Even before there was a treatment, some seasoned doctors and public can you buy over the counter lasix health experts warned, Cassandra-like, that its distribution would be “a logistical nightmare.” After Week 1 of the rollout, “nightmare” sounds like an apt description. Dozens of states say they didn’t receive nearly the number of promised doses. Pfizer says millions of doses sat in its storerooms, because no one from President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed task can you buy over the counter lasix force told them where to ship them. A number of states have few sites that can handle the ultra-cold storage required for the Pfizer product, so, for example, front-line workers in Georgia have had to travel 40 minutes to get a shot.

At some hospitals, residents treating hypertension medications patients protested that they had not received the treatment while administrators did, even though they work from home and don’t treat patients. The potential for more chaos is can you buy over the counter lasix high. Dr. Vivek Murthy, named as the next surgeon general under President-elect Joe Biden, said this week that the Trump administration’s prediction — that the general population would get the treatment in April — was realistic only if everything went smoothly.

He instead predicted wide distribution by summer or can you buy over the counter lasix fall. The Trump administration had expressed confidence that the rollout would be smooth, because it was being overseen by a four-star general, Gustave Perna, an expert in logistics. But it turns out that getting fuel, tanks and tents into war-torn mountainous Afghanistan is in many ways simpler than passing out a treatment in our privatized, profit-focused and highly fragmented medical system. Gen.

Perna apologized this week, saying he wanted to “take personal responsibility.” It’s really mostly not his fault. Throughout the hypertension medications lasix, the U.S. Health care system has shown that it is not built for a coordinated lasix response (among many other things). States took wildly different hypertension medications prevention measures.

Individual hospitals varied in their ability to face this kind of national disaster. And there were huge regional disparities in test availability — with a slow ramp-up in availability due, at least in some part, because no payment or billing mechanism was established. Why should treatment distribution be any different?. In World War II, toymakers were conscripted to make needed military hardware airplane parts, and commercial shipyards to make military transport vessels.

The Trump administration has been averse to invoking the Defense Production Act, which could help speed and coordinate the process of treatment manufacture and distribution. On Tuesday, it indicated it might do so, but only to help Pfizer obtain raw materials that are in short supply, so that the drugmaker could produce — and sell — more treatments in the United States. Instead of a central health-directed strategy, we have multiple companies competing to capture their financial piece of the lasix health care pie, each with its patent-protected product as well as its own supply chain and shipping methods. Add to this bedlam the current decision-tree governing distribution.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made official recommendations about who should get the treatment first — but throughout the lasix, many states have felt free to ignore the agency’s suggestions. Instead, Operation Warp Speed allocated initial doses to the states, depending on population. From there, an inscrutable mix of state officials, public health agencies and lobbyists seem to be determining where the treatment should go. In some states, counties requested an allotment from the state, and then they tried to accommodate requests from hospitals, which made their individual algorithms for how to dole out the precious cargo.

Once it became clear there wasn’t enough treatment to go around, each entity made its own adjustments. Some doses are being shipped by FedEx or UPS. But Pfizer — which did not fully participate in Operation Warp Speed — is shipping much of the treatment itself. In nursing homes, some treatments will be delivered and administered by employees of CVS and Walgreens, though issues of staffing and consent remain there.

The Moderna treatment, rolling out this week, will be packaged by the “pharmaceutical services provider” Catalent in Bloomington, Indiana, and then sent to McKesson, a large pharmaceutical logistics and distribution outfit. It has offices in places like Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, which are near air hubs for FedEx and UPS, which will ship them out. Is your head spinning yet?. Looking forward, basic questions remain for 2021.

How will essential workers at some risk (transit workers, teachers, grocery store employees) know when it’s their turn?. (And it will matter which city you work in.) What about people with chronic illness — and then everyone else?. And who administers the treatment — doctors or the local drugstore?. In Belgium, where many hospitals and doctors are private but work within a significant central organization, residents will get an invitation letter “when it’s their turn.” In Britain, the National Joint Committee on Vaccination has settled on a priority list for vaccinations — those over 80, those who live or work in nursing homes, and health care workers at high risk.

The National Health Service will let everyone else “know when it’s your turn to get the treatment ” from the government-run health system. In the United States, I dread a mad scramble — as in, “Did you hear the CVS on P Street got a shipment?. € But this time, it’s not toilet paper. Combine this vision of disorder with the nation’s high death toll, and it’s not surprising that there is intense jockeying and lobbying — by schools, unions, even people with different types of preexisting diseases — over who should get the treatment first, second and third.

It’s hard to “wait your turn” in a country where there are 200,000 new cases and as many as 2,000 new daily hypertension medications deaths — a tragic per capita order of magnitude higher than in many other developed countries. So kudos and thanks to the science and the scientists who made the treatment in record time. I’ll eagerly hold out my arm — so I can see the family and friends and colleagues I’ve missed all these months. If only I can figure out when I’m eligible, and where to go to get it.

Elisabeth Rosenthal. erosenthal@kff.org, @rosenthalhealth Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story TipMore than 2,900 U.S. Health care workers have died in the hypertension medications lasix since March, a far higher number than that reported by the government, according to a new analysis by KHN and The Guardian. Fatalities from the hypertension have skewed young, with the majority of victims under age 60 in the cases for which there is age data.

People of color have been disproportionately affected, accounting for about 65% of deaths in cases in which there is race and ethnicity data. After conducting interviews with relatives and friends of around 300 victims, KHN and The Guardian learned that one-third of the fatalities involved concerns over inadequate personal protective equipment. Many of the deaths — about 680 — occurred in New York and New Jersey, which were hit hard early in the lasix. Significant numbers also died in Southern and Western states in the ensuing months.

The findings are part of “Lost on the Frontline,” a nine-month data and investigative project by KHN and The Guardian to track every health care worker who dies of hypertension medications. One of those lost, Vincent DeJesus, 39, told his brother Neil that he’d be in deep trouble if he spent much time with a hypertension medications-positive patient while wearing the surgical mask provided to him by the Las Vegas hospital where he worked. DeJesus died on Aug. 15.

Another fatality was Sue Williams-Ward, a 68-year-old home health aide who earned $13 an hour in Indianapolis, and bathed, dressed and fed clients without wearing any PPE, her husband said. She was intubated for six weeks before she died May 2. €œLost on the Frontline” is prompting new government action to explore the root cause of health care worker deaths and take steps to track them better. Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services recently asked the National Academy of Sciences for a “rapid expert consultation” on why so many health care workers are dying in the U.S., citing the count of fallen workers by The Guardian and KHN.

€œThe question is, where are they becoming infected?. € asked Michael Osterholm, a member of President-elect Joe Biden’s hypertension medications advisory team and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. €œThat is clearly a critical issue we need to answer and we don’t have that.” [embedded content] The Dec. 10 report by the national academies suggests a new federal tracking system and specially trained contact tracers who would take PPE policies and availability into consideration.

Doing so would add critical knowledge that could inform generations to come and give meaning to the lives lost. €œThose [health care workers] are people who walked into places of work every day because they cared about patients, putting food on the table for families, and every single one of those lives matter,” said Sue Anne Bell, a University of Michigan assistant professor of nursing and co-author of the national academies report. The recommendations come at a fraught moment for health care workers, as some are getting the hypertension medications treatment while others are fighting for their lives amid the highest levels of the nation has seen. The toll continues to mount.

In Indianapolis, for example, 41-year-old nurse practitioner Kindra Irons died Dec. 1. She saw seven or eight home health patients per week while wearing full PPE, including an N95 mask and a face shield, according to her husband, Marcus Irons. The lasix destroyed her lungs so badly that six weeks on the most aggressive life support equipment, ECMO, couldn’t save her, he said.

Marcus Irons said he is now struggling financially to support their two youngest children, ages 12 and 15. €œNobody should have to go through what we’re going through,” he said. In Massachusetts, 43-year-old Mike “Flynnie” Flynn oversaw transportation and laundry services at North Shore Medical Center, a hospital in Salem, Massachusetts. He and his wife were also raising young children, ages 8, 10 and 11.

Flynn, who shone at father-daughter dances, fell ill in late November and died Dec. 8. He had a heart attack at home on the couch, according to his father, Paul Flynn. A hospital spokesperson said he had full access to PPE and free testing on-site.

Since the first months of the lasix, more than 70 reporters at The Guardian and KHN have scrutinized numerous governmental and public data sources, interviewed the bereaved and spoken with health care experts to build a count. The total number includes fatalities identified by labor unions, obituaries and news outlets and in online postings by the bereaved, as well as by relatives of the deceased. The previous total announced by The Guardian and KHN was approximately 1,450 health care worker deaths. The new number reflects the inclusion of data reported by nursing homes and health facilities to the federal and state governments.

These deaths include the facility names but not worker names. Reporters cross-checked each record to ensure fatalities did not appear in the database twice. The tally has been widely cited by other media as well as by members of Congress. Rep.

Norma Torres (D-Calif.) referenced the data citing the need for a pending bill that would provide compensation to the families of health care workers who died or sustained long-term disabilities from hypertension medications. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) mentioned the tally in a Senate Finance Committee hearing about the medical supply chain. €œThe fact is,” he said, “the shortages of PPE have put our doctors and nurses and caregivers in grave danger.” This story is part of “Lost on the Frontline,” an ongoing project from The Guardian and Kaiser Health News that aims to document the lives of health care workers in the U.S.

Who die from hypertension medications, and to investigate why so many are victims of the disease. If you have a colleague or loved one we should include, please share their story. Christina Jewett. ChristinaJ@kff.org, @by_cjewett Melissa Bailey.

@mmbaily Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story TipWorkers at Garfield Medical Center in suburban Los Angeles were on edge as the lasix ramped up in March and April. Staffers in a 30-patient unit were rationing a single tub of sanitizing wipes all day. A May memo from the CEO said N95 masks could be cleaned up to 20 times before replacement. Patients showed up hypertension medications-negative but some still developed symptoms a few days later.

Contact tracing took the form of texts and whispers about exposures. By summer, frustration gave way to fear. At least 60 staff members at the 210-bed community hospital caught hypertension medications, according to records obtained by KHN and interviews with eight staff members and others familiar with hospital operations. The first to die was Dawei Liang, 60, a quiet radiology technician who never said no when a colleague needed help.

A cardiology technician became infected and changed his final wishes — agreeing to intubation — hoping for more years to dote on his grandchildren. Few felt safe. Ten months into the lasix, it has become far clearer why tens of thousands of health care workers have been infected by the lasix and why so many have died. Dire PPE shortages.

Limited hypertension medications tests. Sparse tracking of viral spread. Layers of flawed policies handed down by health care executives and politicians, and lax enforcement by government regulators. All of those breakdowns, across cities and states, have contributed to the deaths of more than 2,900 health care workers, a nine-month investigation by over 70 reporters at KHN and The Guardian has found.

This number is far higher than that reported by the U.S. Government, which does not have a comprehensive national count of health care workers who’ve died of hypertension medications. The fatalities have skewed young, with the majority of victims under age 60 in the cases for which there is age data. People of color have been disproportionately affected, accounting for about 65% of deaths in cases in which there is race and ethnicity data.

After conducting interviews with relatives and friends of around 300 victims, KHN and The Guardian learned that one-third of the fatalities involved concerns over inadequate personal protective equipment. Many of the deaths occurred in New York and New Jersey, and significant numbers also died in Southern and Western states as the lasix wore on. Workers at well-funded academic medical centers — hubs of policymaking clout and prestigious research — were largely spared. Those who died tended to work in less prestigious community hospitals like Garfield, nursing homes and other health centers in roles in which access to critical information was low and patient contact was high.

Garfield Medical Center and its parent company, AHMC Healthcare, did not respond to multiple calls or emails regarding workers’ concerns and circumstances leading to the worker deaths. So as 2020 draws to a close, we ask. Did so many of the nation’s health care workers have to die?. New York’s Warning for the Nation The seeds of the crisis can be found in New York and the surrounding cities and suburbs.

It was the region where the profound risks facing medical staff became clear. And it was here where the most died. As the lasix began its U.S. Surge, city paramedics were out in force, their sirens cutting through eerily empty streets as they rushed patients to hospitals.

Carlos Lizcano, a blunt Queens native who had been with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) for two decades, was one of them. He was answering four to five cardiac arrest calls every shift. Normally he would have fielded that many in a month. He remembered being stretched so thin he had to enlist a dying man’s son to help with CPR.

On another call, he did chest compressions on a 33-year-old woman as her two small children stood in the doorway of a small apartment. €œI just have this memory of those kids looking at us like, ‘What’s going on?. €™â€ After the young woman died, Lizcano went outside and punched the ambulance in frustration and grief. The personal risks paramedics faced were also grave.

More than 40% of emergency medical service workers in the FDNY went on leave for confirmed or suspected hypertension during the first three months of the lasix, according to a study by the department’s chief medical officer and others. In fact, health care workers were three times more likely than the general public to get hypertension medications, other researchers found. And the risks were not equally spread among medical professions. Initially, CDC guidelines were written to afford the highest protection to workers in a hospital’s hypertension medications unit.

Yet months later, it was clear that the doctors initially thought to be at most risk — anesthesiologists and those working in the intensive care unit — were among the least likely to die. This could be due to better personal protective equipment or patients being less infectious by the time they reach the ICU. Instead, scientists discovered that “front door” health workers like paramedics and those in acute-care “receiving” roles — such as in the emergency room — were twice as likely as other health care workers to be hospitalized with hypertension medications. [embedded content] For FDNY’s first responders, part of the problem was having to ration and reuse masks.

Workers were blind to an invisible threat that would be recognized months later. The lasix spread rapidly from pre-symptomatic people and among those with no symptoms at all. In mid-March, Lizcano was one of thousands of FDNY first responders infected with hypertension medications. At least four of them died, city records show.

They were among the 679 health care workers who have died in New York and New Jersey to date, most at the height of the terrible first wave of the lasix. €œInitially, we didn’t think it was this bad,” Lizcano said, recalling the confusion and chaos of the early lasix. €œThis city wasn’t prepared.” Neither was the rest of the country. An Elusive Enemy The lasix continued to spread like a ghost through the nation and proved deadly to workers who were among the first to encounter sick patients in their hospital or nursing home.

One government agency had a unique vantage point into the problem but did little to use its power to cite employers — or speak out about the hazards. Health employers had a mandate to report worker deaths and hospitalizations to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. When they did so, the report went to an agency headed by Eugene Scalia, son of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who died in 2016. The younger Scalia had spent part of his career as a corporate lawyer fighting the very agency he was charged with leading.

Its inspectors have documented instances in which some of the most vulnerable workers — those with low information and high patient contact — faced incredible hazards, but OSHA’s staff did little to hold employers to account. Beaumont, Texas, a town near the Louisiana border, was largely untouched by the lasix in early April. That’s when a 56-year-old physical therapy assistant at Christus Health’s St. Elizabeth Hospital named Danny Marks called in sick with a fever and body aches, federal OSHA records show.

He told a human resources employee that he’d been in the room of a patient who was receiving a breathing treatment — the type known as the most hazardous to health workers. The CDC advises that N95 respirators be used by all in the room for the so-called aerosol-generating procedures. (A facility spokesperson said the patient was not known or suspected to have hypertension medications at the time Marks entered the room.) Marks went home to self-isolate. By April 17, he was dead.

The patient whose room Marks entered later tested positive for hypertension medications. And an OSHA investigation into Marks’ death found there was no sign on the door to warn him that a potentially infected patient was inside, nor was there a cart outside the room where he could grab protective gear. The facility did not have a universal masking policy in effect when Marks went in the room, and it was more than likely that he was not wearing any respiratory protection, according to a copy of the report obtained through a public records request. Twenty-one more employees contracted hypertension medications by the time he died.

€œHe was a beloved gentleman and friend and he is missed very much,” Katy Kiser, Christus’ public relations director, told KHN. OSHA did not issue a citation to the facility, instead recommending safety changes. The agency logged nearly 8,700 complaints from health care workers in 2020. Yet Harvard researchers found that some of those desperate pleas for help, often decrying shortages of PPE, did little to forestall harm.

In fact, they concluded that surges in those complaints preceded increases in deaths among working-age adults 16 days later. One report author, Peg Seminario, blasted OSHA for failing to use its power to get employers’ attention about the danger facing health workers. She said issuing big fines in high-profile cases can have a broad impact — except OSHA has not done so. €œThere’s no accountability for failing to protect workers from exposure to this deadly lasix,” said Seminario, a former union health and safety official.

Desperate for Safety Gear There was little outward sign this summer that Garfield Medical Center was struggling to contain hypertension medications. While Medicare has forced nursing homes to report staff s and deaths, no such requirement applies to hospitals. More 'Lost on the Frontline' Stories Dying Young. The Health Care Workers in Their 20s Killed by hypertension medications By Alastair Gee, The Guardian | August 13, 2020A database of deaths compiled by KHN and The Guardian includes a significant minority under 30, leaving shattered dreams and devastated families.(Photo Credit.

The Obra family)Most Home Health Aides ‘Can’t Afford Not to Work’ — Even When Lacking PPEBy Eli Cahan | October 16, 2020Home health aides flattened the curve by keeping the most vulnerable patients — seniors, the disabled, the infirm — out of hospitals. But they’ve done it mostly at poverty wages and without overtime pay, hazard pay, sick leave or health insurance.(Photo Credit. Tamarya Burnett)They Cared for Some of New York’s Most Vulnerable Communities. Then 12 Died.By Danielle Renwick, The Guardian | August 27, 2020Immigrant health workers help keep the U.S.

Health system afloat — and they’re dying of hypertension medications at high rates.(Photo Credit. Pablo Monsalve/VIEWpress via Getty Images)These Front-Line Workers Could Have Retired. They Risked Their Lives Instead. By Shoshana Dubnow | November 20, 2020 An investigation by KHN and The Guardian shows that 329 health care workers age 65 or older have reportedly died of hypertension medications.(Photo Credits.

Tom Miles, David Brown, Bethany MacDonald) Yet as the focus of the lasix moved from the East Coast in the spring to Southern and Western states, health care worker deaths climbed. And behind the scenes at Garfield, workers were dealing with a lack of equipment meant to keep them safe. Complaints to state worker-safety officials filed in March and April said Garfield Medical Center workers were asked to reuse the same N95 respirator for a week. Another complaint said workers ran out of medical gowns and were directed to use less-protective gowns typically provided to patients.

Staffers were shaken by the death of Dawei Liang. And only after his death and a rash of s did Garfield provide N95 masks to more workers and put up plastic tarps to block a hypertension medications unit from an adjacent ward. Yet this may have been too late. The hypertension can easily spread to every corner of a hospital.

Researchers in South Africa traced a single ER patient to 119 cases in a hospital — 80 among staff members. Those included 62 nurses from neurology, surgical and general medical units that typically would not have housed hypertension medications patients. By late July, Garfield cardiac and respiratory technician Thong Nguyen, 73, learned he was hypertension medications-positive days after he collapsed at work. Nguyen loved his job and was typically not one to complain, said his youngest daughter, Dinh Kozuki.

A 34-year veteran at the hospital, he was known for conducting medical tests in multiple languages. His colleagues teased him, saying he was never going to retire. Kozuki said her father spoke up in March about the rationing of protective gear, but his concerns were not allayed. Dinh Kozuki’s father, Thong Nguyen, died of hypertension medications-related complications after nearly 35 years of service at Garfield Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Nguyen’s supervisor told him he’d have to reuse personal protective equipment. €œHe definitely should not have passed [away],” Kozuki said.(Heidi de Marco / KHN) The PPE problems at Garfield were a symptom of a broader problem. As the lasix spread around the nation, chronic shortages of protective gear left many workers in community-based settings fatally exposed. Nearly 1 in 3 family members or friends of around 300 health care workers interviewed by KHN or The Guardian expressed concerns about a fallen workers’ PPE.

Health care workers’ labor unions asked for the more-protective N95 respirators when the lasix began. But Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines said the unfitted surgical masks worn by workers who feed, bathe and lift hypertension medications patients were adequate amid supply shortages. Mary Turner, an ICU nurse and president of the Minnesota Nurses Association, said she protested alongside nurses all summer demanding better protective gear, which she said was often kept from workers because of supply-chain shortages and the lack of political will to address them. €œIt shouldn’t have to be that way,” Turner said.

€œWe shouldn’t have to beg on the streets for protection during a lasix.” At Garfield, it was even hard to get tested. Critical care technician Tony Ramirez said he started feeling ill on July 12. He had an idea of how he might have been exposed. He’d cleaned up urine and feces of a patient suspected of having hypertension medications and worked alongside two staffers who also turned out to be hypertension medications-positive.

At the time, he’d been wearing a surgical mask and was worried it didn’t protect him. Yet he was denied a free test at the hospital, and went on his own time to Dodger Stadium to get one. His positive result came back a few days later. As Ramirez rested at home, he texted Alex Palomo, 44, a Garfield medical secretary who was also at home with hypertension medications, to see how he was doing.

Palomo was the kind of man who came to many family parties but would often slip away unseen. A cousin finally asked him about it. Palomo said he just hated to say goodbye. Palomo would wear only a surgical mask when he would go into the rooms of patients with flashing call lights, chat with them and maybe bring them a refill of water, Ramirez said.

Paramedics work behind an ambulance at the Garfield Medical Center in Monterey Park, California, on March 19. (Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images) Ramirez said Palomo had no access to patient charts, so he would not have known which patients had hypertension medications. €œIn essence, he was helping blindly.” Palomo never answered the text.

He died of hypertension medications on Aug. 14. And Thong Nguyen had fared no better. His daughter, a hospital pharmacist in Fresno, had pressed him to go on a ventilator after seeing other patients survive with the treatment.

It might mean he could retire and watch his grandkids grow up. But it made no difference. €œHe definitely should not have passed [away],” Kozuki said. Nursing Homes Devastated During the summer, as nursing homes recovered from their spring surge, Heather Pagano got a new assignment.

The Doctors Without Borders adviser on humanitarianism had been working in cholera clinics in Nigeria. In May, she arrived in southeastern Michigan to train nursing home staffers on optimal -control techniques. Federal officials required worker death reports from nursing homes, which by December tallied more than 1,100 fatalities. Researchers in Minnesota found particular hazards for these health workers, concluding they were the ones most at risk of getting hypertension medications.

Pagano learned that staffers were repurposing trash bin liners and going to the local Sherwin-Williams store for painting coveralls to backfill shortages of medical gowns. The least-trained clinical workers — nursing assistants — were doing the most hazardous jobs, turning and cleaning patients, and brushing their teeth. She said nursing home leaders were shuffling reams of federal, state and local guidelines yet had little understanding of how to stop the lasix from spreading. €œNo one sent trainers to show people what to do, practically speaking,” she said.

As the lasix wore on, nursing homes reported staff shortages getting worse by the week. Few wanted to put their lives on the line for $13 an hour, the wage for nursing assistants in many parts of the U.S. The organization GetusPPE, formed by doctors to address shortages, saw almost all requests for help were coming from nursing homes, doctors’ offices and other non-hospital facilities. Only 12% of the requests could be fulfilled, its October report said.

And a lasix-weary and science-wary public has fueled the lasix’s spread. In fact, whether or not a nursing home was properly staffed played only a small role in determining its susceptibility to a lethal outbreak, University of Chicago public health professor Tamara Konetzka found. The crucial factor was whether there was widespread viral transmission in the surrounding community. €œIn the end, the story has pretty much stayed the same,” Konetzka said.

€œNursing homes in lasix hot spots are at high risk and there’s very little they can do to keep the lasix out.” The treatment Arrives From March through November, 40 complaints were filed about the Garfield Medical Center with the California Department of Public Health, nearly three times the statewide average for the time. State officials substantiated 11 complaints and said they are part of an ongoing inspection. For Thanksgiving, AHMC Healthcare Chairman Jonathan Wu sent hospital staffers a letter thanking “frontline healthcare workers who continue to serve, selflessly exposing themselves to the lasix so that others may cope, recover and survive.” The letter made no mention of the workers who had died. €œA lot of people were upset by that,” said critical care technician Melissa Ennis.

€œI was upset.” By December, all workers were required to wear an N95 respirator in every corner of the hospital, she said. Ennis said she felt unnerved taking it off. She took breaks to eat and drink in her car. Garfield said on its website that it is screening patients for the lasix and will “implement prevention and control practices to protect our patients, visitors, and staff.” On Dec.

9, Ennis received notice that the treatment was on its way to Garfield. Nationwide, the treatment brought health workers relief from months of tension. Nurses and doctors posted photos of themselves weeping and holding their small children. At the same time, it proved too late for some.

A new surge of deaths drove the toll among health workers to more than 2,900. And before Ennis could get the shot, she learned she would have to wait at least a few more days, until she could get a hypertension medications test. She found out she’d been exposed to the lasix by a colleague. Shoshana Dubnow and Anna Sirianni contributed to this report.

Video by Hannah Norman. Web production by Lydia Zuraw. This story is part of “Lost on the Frontline,” an ongoing project from The Guardian and Kaiser Health News that aims to document the lives of health care workers in the U.S. Who die from hypertension medications, and to investigate why so many are victims of the disease.

If you have a colleague or loved one we should include, please share their story. Christina Jewett. ChristinaJ@kff.org, @by_cjewett Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story TipJournalists from KHN and The Guardian have identified 2,921 workers who reportedly died of complications from hypertension medications after they contracted it on the job. Reporters are working to confirm the cause of death and workplace conditions in each case.

They are also writing about the people behind the statistics — their personalities, passions and quirks — and telling the story of every life lost.Explore the new interactive tool tracking those health worker deaths.(Note. The previous total announced by The Guardian and KHN was approximately 1,450 health care worker deaths. The new number reflects the inclusion of data reported by nursing homes and health facilities to the federal and state governments. These deaths include the facility names but not worker names.

Reporters cross-checked each record to ensure fatalities did not appear in the database twice.) More From This Series. Related Topics Health Industry hypertension medications Doctors Investigation Lost On The Frontline Nursing HomesCan’t see the audio player?. Click here to listen on SoundCloud. hypertension medications was the dominant — but not the only — health policy story of 2020.

In this special year-in-review episode of KHN’s “What the Health?. € podcast, panelists look back at some of the biggest non-hypertension stories. Those included Supreme Court cases on the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid work requirements and abortion, as well as a year-end surprise ending to the “surprise bill” saga. This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of Politico, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News and Sarah Karlin-Smith of Pink Sheet.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast. The hypertension lasix strengthened the hand of ACA supporters, even as the Trump administration sought to get the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health law. Many people felt it was an inopportune time to get rid of that safety valve while so many Americans were losing their jobs — and their health insurance — due to the economic chaos from the lasix.Preliminary enrollment numbers released by federal officials last week suggest that more people were taking advantage of the option to buy coverage for 2021 through the ACA marketplaces than for 2020, even in the absence of enrollment encouragement from the federal government.The ACA’s Medicaid expansion had a bit of a roller-coaster ride this year. Voters in two more states — Oklahoma and Missouri — approved the expansion in ballot measures, but the Trump administration continued its support of state plans that require many adults to prove they are working in order to continue their coverage.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to that policy. Although lower courts have ruled that the Medicaid law does not allow such restrictions, it’s not clear how the new conservative majority on the court will view this issue.Concerns are beginning to grow in Washington about the near-term prospect of the Medicare trust fund going insolvent. That can likely be fixed only with a remedy adopted by Congress, and that may not happen unless lawmakers feel a crisis is very near.The Trump administration has sought to bring down drug out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare beneficiaries. Among those initiatives is a demonstration project to lower the cost of insulin.

About a third of Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in plans that offer reduced prices in 2021. But the effort could have a hidden consequence. Higher insurance premiums.Many members of Congress began this session two years ago with grand promises of working to lower drug prices — but they never reached an agreement on how to do it.President Donald Trump, however, was strongly motivated by the issue and late this year issued an order to set many Medicare drug prices based on what is paid in other industrialized nations. Drugmakers detest the idea and have vowed to fight it in court.

Although some Democrats endorse the concept, it seems unlikely that President-elect Joe Biden would want to spend much capital in a legal battle for a plan that hasn’t been carefully vetted.The gigantic spending and hypertension medications relief bill that Congress finally approved Monday includes a provision to protect consumers from surprise medical bills when they are unknowingly treated by doctors or hospitals outside their insurance network. The law sets up a mediation process to resolve the charges, but the process favors the doctors. Insurers are likely to pass along any extra costs to consumers through higher premiums. To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health?. on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, Spotify, or Pocket Casts. Related Topics Contact Us Submit a Story Tip.

.

Register for Newsletter
Query Form

The United Punjabis of America (UPA) is registered with the Illinois state as Charitable Organization No. 01070317. Donations to UPA will be tax deductible.
website sponsors View All