Better care and drop in smoking cuts heart disease deaths by 36%
#1
Better care and drop in smoking cuts heart disease deaths by 36% David Rose
[*]Thousands saved by statin drugs
[*]Detection rates have improved
[Image: trans.gif]
The number of people dying from heart disease has fallen by more than a third in the past ten years thanks to better treatment, better detection and a decline in smoking.
<script type="text/javascript">NI_MPU('middle');</script>
The dramatic reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease (CHD) is underlined by data released today by the Government. The figures show a 35.9 per cent drop in heart disease deaths for those under 75 since 1996.
The figures suggest that the NHS is on course to meet the target of at least a 40 per cent reduction by 2010.
A reduction in smoking as well as increased use of drugs such as cholesterol-busting statins have had a significant impact on survival rates for the disease.
Heart disease is estimated to be Britain’s biggest killer, with about 270,000 heart attacks occurring each year. But the Government report, Shaping the Future, claims that twice as many people now receive appropriate drugs within half an hour of arriving at hospital, compared with figures in 2000.
The report says that an estimated 9,700 lives were saved through use of statins in 2005 — up from 2,900 in 2000. It also claims that no patients have waited more than three months for heart surgery in the past year.
Tony Blair is expected to visit a hospital in London to witness a heart operation today to coincide with the publication of the figures.
The mortality rate in England from CHD remains higher than most Western European countries, a fact that is blamed on our diet and lifestyle. With 207 men and 70 women under 75 dying per 100,000 of the population, according to recent figures, it is almost three times as high as France, which has the lowest rate. But the decline in mortality is much faster in England, where male and female deaths decreased by 38 per cent and 32 per cent respectively. France and Germany showed a much slower decline over the same period.
When heart disease first emerged in the late 19th century, it was considered a disease of the upper classes, who enjoyed a richer diet, a more sedentary lifestyle and started smoking sooner. The problem became more widespread after the First World War, peaking in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, said that the latest report showed the “fantastic achievements the NHS has made since 2000, not only in treating CHD patients but also in helping to prevent it, by working to reduce factors like smoking, which contribute to the disease. “We are one of the highest-spending countries in Europe for cardiovascular diseases, with one of the fastest improving services.”
People with mental health problems and learning difficulties, often seen as vulnerable groups, were included in the figures.
Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said of the report: “If this were a midterm report, I think our summary would be — some terrific achievements so far, but let’s keep going until the job is done.
“The National Service Framework for CHD demonstrates that if you put enough effort and money into affecting change, you can get real results. But we cannot afford to take our foot off the pedal, as there’s a huge burden of disease out there that still needs to be tackled.”
He said that the National Framework Service had significantly improved heart disease care in England. “But despite the continued fall in premature deaths from heart attacks, coronary heart disease remains the UK’s single biggest killer. And the same efforts that have gone into achieving improvements in heart attack care now need to be aimed at all areas of cardiovascular diseases.
“We need to improve care for the survivors — such as providing equal access to cardiac rehabilitation programmes and, for end-stage heart-failure patients, ensuring palliative care is available to all who need it. The BHF will continue to press for all these areas to receive the attention and investment from Government that they need.”
Reply
#2
Meanwhile, 1 child every 3 seconds is aborted around the world...
Reply
#3
Marty Wrote:Meanwhile, 1 child every 3 seconds is aborted around the world...

Yeah, I always feel sick when I celebrities making a big show of themselves helping sick or starving children and acting like there's no such thing as the murder of unborn children.
Reply
#4
liliaagri Wrote:
Marty Wrote:Meanwhile, 1 child every 3 seconds is aborted around the world...

Yeah, I always feel sick when I celebrities making a big show of themselves helping sick or starving children and acting like there's no such thing as the murder of unborn children.

But it would make them lose points in popularity polls! [Image: sobstory.gif]

By the way, can someone point me to a site providing pro-life arguments against atheists? (Or should we just accept that it is fine that when an embryo does not look like a cute baby it is just a “lump of flesh”? [Image: hoppingmad.gif])
Reply
#5
Quote:lilaagri wrote
Yeah, I always feel sick when I celebrities making a big show of themselves helping sick or starving children and acting like there's no such thing as the murder of unborn children.

So should they not help sick or starving children?

Reply
#6
ABORTIONTV.COM
Reply
#7
mojomama Wrote:
Quote:lilaagri wrote
Yeah, I always feel sick when I celebrities making a big show of themselves helping sick or starving children and acting like there's no such thing as the murder of unborn children.

So should they not help sick or starving children?

 
I think it's obvious that sick and starving children need help. My point was the hypocrisy involved, and the fact that (as Grumpy Troll pointed out) they're probably just doing for the popularity.
 
It was always the church's job to care for the poor and sick, and to care for their souls at the same time. I don't know what Angelina Jolie campaigning against AIDS in Africa is going to do for anyone's soul.
Reply
#8
What makes you assume it's hypocrisy? I choose my charitable causes, don't you? And I don't think the fact that I choose one and not another is a sign of hypocrisy. It's just my choice of cause, and it's no one's business to "read in" motive for me.

What someone chooses to do about AIDS in Africa may or may not have an impact on someone's soul, that's the Creator's to determine and not mine. But the thing I can see is whether it helps someone's temporal life - and I say to those who have had good fortune in this life and choose to share their good fortune in endeavors that lift others up "Bravo!"
Reply
#9
mojomama Wrote:What makes you assume it's hypocrisy? I choose my charitable causes, don't you? And I don't think the fact that I choose one and not another is a sign of hypocrisy. It's just my choice of cause, and it's no one's business to "read in" motive for me.

What someone chooses to do about AIDS in Africa may or may not have an impact on someone's soul, that's the Creator's to determine and not mine. But the thing I can see is whether it helps someone's temporal life - and I say to those who have had good fortune in this life and choose to share their good fortune in endeavors that lift others up "Bravo!"

I'm a little bit on your side here, Mojomama. We shouldn't rush in and call it hypocrisy just because the one who is doing it is a celebrity.
However, I would deem it probable that a certain number of these celebs do it for the PR. Not many of them choses politically incorrect causes like, for instance, aid to the helpless Serbs and Christians in Kosovo and Bosnia, aborted children, anti-abortion measures (I'd like to see Bono championing this...) the plight of Christians in Sudan and Nigeria.
Normally they chose helping "discriminated and stigmatized" homosexuals, "freedom fighters" somewhere (terrorists) et al.
That may reveal a certain inclination and possible motive, but we don't know this and must assume the best. If we always assume the worst in others, we are guilty of wronging them.
 
Reply
#10
Marty Wrote:ABORTIONTV.COM

Thank you very much. [Image: tiphat2.gif]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)