November 17, 2006
TELL US MORE ABOUT THAT ENLIGHTENMENT AGAIN
Maggots set to clean up (The Times, November 14th, 2006)
Maggots have for some time been recognised as useful in the treatment of wounds. The problem is, they carry a strong “yuck factorâ€.But Nursing Times (Nov 7) reports on research which could result in the little chaps playing a more central role in wound healing.
The research found that using maggots rather than special dressings to treat pressure ulcers saves cash. Used on 10 per cent to 20 per cent of infected wounds, maggots could save the NHS up to £30 million a year.
This is one reason we social conservatives are always careful to pretend we have no principled objection to progress.
When you let your barber pull your sore teeth, then I'll be convinced that you are a true traditionalist.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 17, 2006 8:10 PMI'm surprised, OJ, that you didn't make the most obvious comment about this story...that socialized medicine is taking the British back to the bad old days, (using maggots, allowing sickly babies to die) all in the name of saving a few pounds.
Posted by: H.D. Miller at November 17, 2006 8:39 PMH.D.
You can't blame OJ for this one. He is off for a couple of days reuniting the kids with Mickey. But I'm surprised you didn't pick that up. Feeling a little out of sorts these days? Not to worry, we have the solution.
Posted by: Peter B at November 17, 2006 9:07 PMIt's always nice and ironic when modern science confirms traditional wisdom, but it's newsworthy partly because it usually doesn't happen that way.
Posted by: PapayaSF at November 18, 2006 12:32 AMYuck doesn't half cover it. There would have to be an immense PR campaign to make maggots palatable to the general public.
Posted by: erp at November 18, 2006 8:21 AMThe real point of the story is that maggots do the job better than any development of modern medicine. That they are incredibly cheap is a feature, not a bug (sorry, couldn't resist).
Meanwhile, I will be very interested to hear the type of jet OJ took to Orlando. If he flew US Airways or Jet Blue, chances are he was on the dreaded Airbus!
Unless, as Joe suggested last year, he horse-jacked an Amish buggy for the journey south.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 18, 2006 10:24 AMMany apologies, Peter, I'm sorry I missed that it was you. ( I honestly seem to be off my game these past few weeks, perhaps a good trepaning is in order.)
And, Jim, the full article does not say maggots do a better job. It only says that they "save cash" and are "useful", therefore, I think my original point stands.
Posted by: H.D. Miller at November 18, 2006 6:11 PMMr. Miller;
The "better" comes from other sources. This is something that's been in research for a number of years. What the maggots do is eat dead flesh but very little living flesh. For a messy wound, they do that much better than any other currently known technique. See this for instance and note that it's a couple of years old. Or here's one from the NIH from 2004. I hate to defend the NHS for any reason, but this is not some "let's save money at any cost" scheme. Now, it may be that this research is wrong, but then the fault lies with the researchers, not the NHS.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 18, 2006 8:23 PMH.D. - you are right, this article doesn't say it, but I have read elsewhere (several times in the past 10+ years) that maggots are better than modern medicine at this sort of thing, and many hospitals in the US use them now (presumably with the patient's consent).
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 18, 2006 9:55 PM