health Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Neil Turner's Blog

Preventing Tetanus

December 23, 2024March 11, 2014 by Neil Turner

Screenshot of the NHS information page about tetanus

When was the last time you had a tetanus vaccine? If the answer is ‘I don’t know’ or ‘more than ten years ago’, then you may wish to contact your GP to make an appointment to get vaccinated.

After a recent incident involving a colleague’s hand, a door, and their subsequent trip to the local accident and emergency department, I realised that the answer to that question was the latter in my case. I’m pretty sure that I’d not had a booster vaccination for tetanus since before leaving York to go to university in 2002, so I was overdue.

Thankfully, the vaccine is free to everyone in the UK (thank you, NHS). As I already had an appointment with the practice nurse for an asthma checkup yesterday, I just asked in advance if I could be given the vaccination at the same time. It’s mostly like any other vaccine but can make your arm hurt for up to 48 hours afterwards apparently.

Tetanus is actually pretty rare in the UK, with only three people contracting the disease in England and Wales in the whole of 2011. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have the vaccine, as though it is rare, it can be fatal. The symptoms can include lockjaw, followed by muscle spasms and stiffness, a fever, high blood pressure and an increased heartbeat. If left untreated, it can result in heart failure, and indeed 11% of those who contract the disease die. The disease is usually contracted through wounds on the skin, which is why you may be asked if you have had the vaccine recently if you present at casualty with an injury.

Some younger people may have lifelong immunity to tetanus, thanks to changes in the vaccination programme, but if you’re approaching middle age like me then you will probably need a booster vaccine every ten years. Either way, speak to your GP or practice nurse, as he/she will be able to advise you whether you need the vaccine.

Reluctantly opting out of care.data

December 23, 2024February 19, 2014 by Neil Turner

A screenshot of the faxyourgp.com web site

I wrote this article before the six month delay was announced yesterday. However, most of it still applies, so read on.

Yesterday, I reluctantly opted out of having my medical records shared with third parties. I’ll explain why, and how to do this yourself.

NHS England are compiling a new database called ‘care.data’, which will be available for health professionals, universities, drug companies and insurers to use. The main aim is for medical research, which could be ethnographic, or to look at individual cases for the advancement of healthcare and treatments. The NHS, being a mostly-integrated system which is used by a vast majority of the population, means that it is almost unique amongst healthcare systems in the world in providing cradle-to-grave care. The data produced by the NHS could be really valuable and lead to better health and wellbeing for everyone. Further information is on the NHS Choices web site, and this article in Nature explains why it is a good idea.

On this basis, it seems like a good idea. But whilst the idea is good, the execution isn’t.

The major issue is privacy. To compile this database, the full medical records of everybody who is registered with a GP in England will be imported into this database. You would expect, therefore, for this data to be anonymised; it is, but only slightly. Your name will be removed, but your date of birth, full postcode, NHS number and gender will still be included. That will still make just about everyone in the database uniquely identifiable.

For example, I work at a university – indeed, one where the data from such a database could be really useful, as we do medical research. In fact, I’ll make a shameless plug for our Crocus Cancer Appeal whilst I’m here. Anyway, we have a student database, and, given someone’s’ postcode and date of birth from their pseudo-anonymised medical record, I reckon we could match 99% of those records with our student records. So it’s not at all anonymous. And there’s a particular worry that insurance companies will be able to access records, which could make it very difficult for some people to obtain life insurance.

To make matters worse, this is an ‘opt-out’ scheme rather than opt-in. If you do nothing, then in just a few weeks your data will be irrevocably added to this database, at which point, you will not be able to opt out if you change your mind.

Unsurprisingly opposition to this has been growing. A petition on SumOfUs.org has over 250,000 signatures, and there are concerns from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs. In particular, there are concerns that only around a third of adults recall receiving a leaflet about the changes (I certainly don’t remember receiving one) and that there is no form to opt out. Others are worried about the potential for accidental data leaks, or for information to end up in the hands of organisations like GCHQ or the NSA.

So, although I’m in favour of the general idea, and agree with the spirit behind the database, I have contacted my GP surgery asking for my medical records to not be included in the care.data database. Because I’m worried that my medical records could be abused or used in a way that would not be in my best interests, and because this is my only chance to opt out. I can’t just wait and see what happens, and try to opt out later, as it’ll be too late.

I hope that changes will be made, which will maintain the usefulness of the data whilst respecting the privacy of the people whose data is being used. In particular, a greater level of anonymity, perhaps with more vague dates of birth (month and year only) and less accurate postcodes (sub-districts rather than exact areas). And people should be able to opt out at any time, not just at the start of the project. If these changes are made, then I may consider opting back in.

So, if having read this, you also want to opt out, then the easiest way is using FaxYourGP, which will send a template fax to your GP. Alternatively, medConfidential has a form and covering letter which you can use. Whilst you can write your own letter, there are certain codes that you will need to include in your letter which is why I’d suggest using one of the two methods.

It’s sad that I feel like I need to opt out from what could be a great resource, and I’m angry that it has been managed so poorly.

The blood donation interval study

December 23, 2024July 19, 2013 by Neil Turner

I’ve recently volunteered to part of the INTERVAL study, which will look into how frequently blood donors can give blood.

At present, the guidelines are very rigid: men can give every twelve weeks and women can give every sixteen weeks. What the interval study aims to do is allow some people to donate more frequently, whilst monitoring samples of blood taken at the donation. The hope is that, in future, regular donors will be able to give blood more often than at present, boosting blood stocks.

The NHS Blood Service is already facing challenges. The recent heatwave in the UK has led to fewer people giving blood and current stocks of O- and B- blood groups are critically low (less than four days’ worth). The UK also has an ageing population with people living longer, and more blood will be needed to support the very young and very old who can’t donate themselves. And despite recent drives to recruit more donors, only around 4% of people give blood.

Some other EU countries already allow people to donate more frequently. In Austria, it’s eight for men and ten for women. However, there may be factors that affect how regularly individual people can donate, which is why samples will be taken at each donation. This may mean that, following the outcomes of the study, some people will be able to donate more frequently than others. What is most interesting about the study is its size: in total, 50,000 regular donors are needed – 25,000 men and 25,000 women.

I’ll admit that it took me until last year to give my first pint of blood, but I’ve donated twice since then, and agreed to be part of the interval study. Of course, with my luck being as it is, I’m in the control group and can therefore still only give blood every twelve weeks. But some men will be selected to give every ten weeks or even every eight weeks. Women will be able to donate every sixteen weeks (the control group), fourteen or twelve weeks.

There are a few caveats with the interval study. Firstly, you will have to, as far as possible, keep to the regular donation cycle that you have been placed onto with minimal variations. Secondly, the study is for two years, so you will need to sustain the regular donations for this period. Finally, the donations you make will need to be at one of the 24 dedicated blood centres in England; thankfully there’s one in Bradford which is within walking distance from work. But my friends in York would have to go to Leeds, for example.

Hopefully the results of the interval study will confirm that it is safe for people to donate more frequently. Until such a time comes when we can safely and efficiently manufacture replacement blood, our hospitals are reliant on a regular supply of blood from donors. Being able to make optimal use of the small minority who do give blood regularly will benefit so many more patients in urgent need of a transfusion.

If you don’t already give blood, you can find more details on blood.co.uk.

Blood donation

December 23, 2024November 15, 2012 by Neil Turner

I donated blood for the first time today.

On Tuesday, I donated a pint of blood, for the first time.

It’s been something that I’ve been meaning to do for quite some time. I’m already an organ donor (I carry a card around which shows that I give consent for my organs to be used in transplants after my death), but until now I’ve never given blood.

I couldn’t donate throughout much of 2007 and 2008, as I had been on high-strength steroid tablets due to flare-ups with my asthma and my overnight stay in hospital in November 2007. But although I’ve been okay since then, I admit that I’ve simply never got around to it, even when there have been donation sessions at work.

My big worry was that it would hurt. And it did – a bit. For me the worst bit was the needle being inserted at the start; the pain was similar to when I’ve had vaccinations but lasted a little longer. However, once it was in, it was okay – a little uncomfortable, but not painful, and it was done after around 10-15 minutes. All in all, I was there for about an hour, due to me being a new donor and needing a slightly longer medical check first.

Afterwards, the site where the needle went in was a little tender for a few hours, but I didn’t receive any bruising and there was just a small red dot when I took the bandage off.

I’ve already booked another appointment, for mid-March next year, to donate my second pint. If you want to give blood, you can find details at blood.org.uk – the NHS needs a constant supply of blood and so if you are healthy and can spare the time I’d urge you to do it.

Schools deny girls cervical cancer jabs on religious grounds

March 27, 2026July 18, 2012 by Neil Turner

This was originally a guest post at Stupid Evil Bastard, re-posted here following that site’s demise.

It’s been almost three years (!) since I’ve written a Guest Post for SEB, but a recent news story here in the UK prompted me to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and write something.

Over here in the UK, some religious schools have opted out of offering free HPV vaccines to their students. HPV – the Human Papillomavirus – is linked to as many as 70% of cases of cervical cancer and is therefore offered, free of charge, to girls aged 12 and 13. Around 1000 women die from cervical cancer each year, so this vaccine has the potential to save hundreds of lives. And normally, it is up to individual parents’ to opt their children out, but these schools have made the decision to opt out of the vaccine for all of their students.

The HPV vaccine is controversial – not because of any side effects, but because HPV is a sexually-transmitted infection. Consequently, some parents opt their children out as they do not want to encourage sexual promiscuity, or feel that because their religion forbids sexual intercourse before marriage that this is incompatible with their faith.

The key problem is that a number of these schools have not informed local doctors that they have chosen to opt out. Consequently, should a child’s parent actually want their child to have the vaccine, it is not subsequently being offered by their doctor and so some children may miss out.

What is laughable are some of the reasons given by the schools for opting out, such as:

“pupils follow strict Christian principles, marry within their own community and do not practise sex outside marriage”

Because we know how likely that is. Regular SEB readers will know that abstinence-only sex education is not effective and actually results in a higher rate of unprotected sex – and consequently puts both men and women at risk of contracting the virus. Although the vaccination programme only targets girls, men can carry the virus and it while it frequently results in no adverse symptoms, carriers are at a heightened risk of other cancers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has some handy information if you want to read more.

Should schools be allowed to put the health of their students at risk in this way, in the course of religious observance? And if so, should such schools be forced to make the effort to provide parents with the information they need to seek alternative sources of the vaccine?

Is public healthcare in Britain really that bad?

March 27, 2026August 12, 2009 by Neil Turner

This was originally a guest post at Stupid Evil Bastard, re-posted here following that site’s demise.

Obama’s plans for healthcare reform in the US are far from uncontroversial and many of those on the right side of the political spectrum have been coming up with various facts and figures to undermine his moves to widen access. One of the (perhaps unintended) targets of this has been Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), a ‘socialised’ health care system, and many claims have been made about its supposed failings. But are these claims really true? British newspaper The Guardian investigated the claims and came up with the facts:

The claim: Ted Kennedy, 77, would not be treated for his brain tumour if he was in Britain because he is too old – Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa.
The response: Untrue, says the Department of Health. “There is no ban on anyone of any age receiving any treatment, ” said a spokesman. “Whether to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery is rightly a clinical decision taken on a case by case basis.”
The claim: In England, anyone over 59 years of age cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed – an anonymously authored, but widely circulated, email, largely sent to older voters
The response: Totally untrue. Growing numbers of patients over 65 with heart conditions are having surgery, including valve repairs and heart bypass surgery, says Professor Peter Weissberg, the British Heart Foundation’s (BHF) medical director. For example, the average age at which people have a bypass operation has risen from 58 in 1991 to 66 in 2008.

There are several more which reveal the true facts. It’s true that survival rates for breast and prostate cancers are lower in Britain than in the US, but whether that is due to the standard of treatment or care, or down to other factors (such as diet, exercise or genetic variations) isn’t explored. In any case, not one of the major British political parties promotes the abolition of the NHS, and barely any of the minor ones would abolish it either. While most Brits, politicians or otherwise, would happily spend half an hour telling you about how the NHS could be improved, you would find it hard to find anyone who would want to get rid of it altogether.

Poorest Brits are healthier than Richest Americans

March 27, 2026May 7, 2006 by Neil Turner

This was originally a guest post at Stupid Evil Bastard, re-posted here following that site’s demise.

A study published by the American Medical Association shows that even the poorest Brits are healthier than the richest Americans:

Middle-aged, white Americans are much sicker than their counterparts in England, startling new research shows, despite U.S. health care spending per person that’s more than double what England spends.
A higher rate of Americans tested positive for diabetes and heart disease than the English. Americans also self-reported more diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, lung disease and cancer.
The gap between the countries holds true for educated and uneducated, rich and poor.

The study focused only on non-Hispanic whites and took factors like smoking, drinking and obesity into account – Brits tend to drink more heavily and more Americans are obese. It concluded that Americans tend to have a worse diet (eating more junk food) and took part in less exercise, but also that in Britain the primary health care provision was better, so that ailments were being picked up and treated earlier.

The media on both sides of the Atlantic constantly derides Britain’s state health care system but actually it does work nearly all the time, and studies like this show that.