Latest news with #healthcare
News.com.au
28 minutes ago
- Health
- News.com.au
Aussie girl Marleigh, 10, talks to A Current Affair about new blood donation rules
A 10-year old Australian girl who relies on blood donations to stay alive says she has a better chance at life from new rules that allow gay and bisexual men and transgender women to donate plasma. Mum Kate told A Current Affair her daughter Marleigh relies on blood donations because of an incurable condition that is potentially fatal and has no cure. Kate fought for years to have the rules changed in Australia that would allow more people to donate lifesaving plasma. Kate said Marleigh suffered seizures that lasted up to almost 40 hours and their gay male friends were heartbroken they could not donate blood when the young girl was at her sickest. 'Her immune system is wrongly identifying her healthy brain cells as foreign and attacking her brain,' she said. 'We have so many friends, particularly our gay male friends, who would love to donate for Marleigh. 'All they wanted to do was go and jump in a seat at Lifeblood and donate the blood.' According to Lifeblood, earlier rules prevented gay and bisexual men and transgender women from donating blood or plasma if they had sex with men in the past three months. Lifeblood will remove most sexual activity wait times for plasma donations from July 14, which means most people, and anyone who takes pre-exposure prophylaxis that meets other eligibility criteria, will be able to donate plasma. The lifesaving organisation expects an extra 24,000 Australians will be able to give about 95,000 donations of plasma each year. Lifeblood chief medical officer Jo Pink said with plasma now the donation type most needed by Australian patients, the change came at an important time. 'We're excited to be able to welcome more people from across the community into our donor centres from next month,' she said. Dr Pink said the Therapeutic Goods Administration was also in the process of approving their submission to remove gender-based sexual activity rules, which means all donors will be asked the same rules about their sexual activity. She said their submission to change rules for blood donation included data that showed a six month wait was the safest option for Australian patients. 'But we are committed to reviewing this as more evidence becomes available,' she said. 'There are many steps that Lifeblood needs to take before we can implement the new gender-neutral assessments, including working with state and territory governments to change the donor questionnaire. 'We hope to be able to implement this part of the changes next year. 'Blood safety is and always will be our top priority but we know the current donation rules have been very difficult for many people in the LGBTQIA+ community. 'While they were put in place to ensure a safe blood supply in the past, we know that they've contributed to the stigma faced by the community.' Health Equity Matters chief executive officer Dash Heath-Paynter said he welcomed this change that could unlock thousands of donations of lifesaving plasma. 'While there is still more work, the Therapeutic Goods Administration's approval for gender neutral assessments for blood donation is welcomed,' he said. 'In terms of plasma donations, these changes mean Australia's regulations are world-leading.' Kirby Institute head of global health program John Kaldor said Lifeblood had developed pragmatic and innovative new procedures for blood donations with scientific evidence that shifted societal expectations.
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Major Republican rumored for gubernatorial run, hits back against Dem: ‘Worst governor in America'
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., a key Trump ally who is rumored to be planning a gubernatorial run in 2026, hit back hard against New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, calling her the "worst governor in America" after the Democrat dinged her over Medicaid cuts. In a Friday post on social media, Hochul accused Stefanik of voting "to put five hospitals in her district on the chopping block, endangering her own constituents' lives, health, and jobs—all to serve Donald Trump." "I won't stand for it. I'm fighting like hell to save New Yorkers' health care," said Hochul. In response, Stefanik posted on X, "Hi @KathyHochul! Welcome to the fight." "You didn't get exposed enough during our last round when you testified and were totally exposed for your dangerous and failed sanctuary state policies ?? Let's do Medicaid now," she wrote. Stefanik slammed Hochul for giving Medicaid benefits to illegal immigrants, "putting New Yorkers most vulnerable LAST." "NY's Medicaid program is rampant with tens of billions of waste, fraud, and abuse under Kathy's watch," she wrote. "Kathy Hochul, the Worst Governor in America oversees the worst run Medicaid program in the country harming NYers. Medicaid is an incredibly important program that I have worked to strengthen for New Yorkers." The New York congresswoman then added, "Oh and Kathy, your numbers in rural NY are plummeting" and "I have been nationally recognized as the TOP advocate to deliver results for rural hospitals due to my work for hospitals in my district." In another post, Stefanik said, "Oh Kathy. I'm glad I set your schedule these days - from setting your Tweet schedule by forcing you to tweet on the Communist Mayor who just won in your Democrat Party in NYC. To you now scrambling to go to Saranac Lake because of news articles. When I have an announcement to make, believe me you'll know." This comes after Stefanik pressured Hochul to say whether she supported the new Democratic nominee for New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has made controversial statements criticizing Israel and promoting Palestine and who identifies as a Democratic Socialist. Hochul has since said she plans to meet with Mamdani to discuss his ideas for the city but has not yet issued a full endorsement. Stefanik has said that as the leader of the New York Democratic Party, Hochul "fully embraced the antisemitic, Communist nominee," adding, "she owns this catastrophe." Earlier this month, Stefanik told a Republican crowd in Staten Island she was "strongly considering" entering the race for governor. She unveiled a new state political action committee, Save New York, which appears aimed at further cementing her status as a heavyweight in Empire State GOP politics.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Health
- Yahoo
BlueCross BlueShield at risk of losing CHRISTUS Health contract due to healthcare dispute
For decades BlueCross and BlueShield of Texas (BCBSTX) has been an accepted insurance provider for CHRISTUS Health, but that could all change if they cannot reach an agreement by July 1. Visit this article to learn more: KETK/FOX51 News covers East Texas, bringing you the latest local stories, weather, sports and lifestyle coverage from the Piney Woods. Keep up with KETK/FOX51 News: Download the KETK/FOX51 app: Subscribe to KETK/FOX51 News: Find us on Facebook: and
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Doctors, Nurses, And EMTs, Tell Us Your Most Unhinged Patient Stories
A lot of things happen in hospitals — some heartbreaking, some heartwarming. But every so often, a patient comes in and says or does something so bizarre, so wildly unfiltered, you just have to laugh. So, if you're a doctor, nurse, EMT, or medical professional, tell us: What's the most absurd, hilarious, or straight-up unhinged thing you've witnessed on the job? Related: Choose Between These Cakes And I'll Guess Which Season You Were Born In! Perhaps you had a woman come into the ER with a full-body rash. Interestingly, her skin was also covered She was absolutely convinced she was having a rare, life-threatening allergic reaction. Turns out she had lathered herself in glitter body lotion from 2002. Related: I Am VERY Confident That I Can Guess Your Relationship Status Based On Your Favorite Songs From The Early 2000s Maybe you had a middle-aged guy who was in the hospital long-term after a serious accident. He needed multiple surgeries and a long road of rehab. The problem was, his surgeries kept having to be rescheduled MULTIPLE times because he could not for the life of him follow the instructions of fasting the night before. One morning, around 6 a.m., right before anesthesia, you noticed he Turns out, he had a half-eaten slice of pizza hidden in his hospital bed "for emergencies." When you asked what kind of emergency, he said, "Hunger, obviously." Or, perhaps, you were taking care of a 5-year-old boy who needed to get shots in his arm, but he wouldn't sit still, so you requested his mom to help hold him. While you were both holding him, he kept yelling, "Help!" "Help!" and then he escalated, screaming at the top of his lungs, "HELPPPP! POLICE! POLICE!" A police officer was actually on the floor for an unrelated reason, and you had to calmly explain to him it was not a hostage situation but a simple vaccination. So, if you've had a memorable patient experience ranging from hilarious to unhinged, please do share. You can let us know in the comments or at this anonymous form. Also in Community: I'm Sorry, But Every American Should Be Able To Pass This Basic-Level US States Quiz Also in Community: Your Taste Buds Will Totally Expose What Personality Type You Have Also in Community: Make A Disney Playlist And We'll Guess Your True Age
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
