would etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
would etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

8 Mayıs 2017 Pazartesi

Labour would ban junk food adverts during TV popular with children

Adverts for junk food and sweets will be banned from hit TV shows including The X Factor, Hollyoaks and Britain’s Got Talent under Labour plans to tackle childhood obesity.


A £250m-a-year fund aimed at making UK youngsters the healthiest in the world would also see investment in school nurses.


In an effort to tackle child mental health problems, the plan would support counselling services in primary and secondary schools. Adverts for unhealthy products high in fat, salt or sugar are already banned on children’s television. Labour’s plans would extend the prohibition to cover all programmes before the 9pm watershed.


Campaigners have argued that the existing ban does not cover TV programmes popular with youngsters but not specifically aimed at them.


Labour highlighted figures suggesting the move would reduce children’s viewing of junk food adverts by 82%. The move is part of a strategy to halve the number of overweight children within 10 years in an effort to curb the £6bn annual cost to the NHS of obesity.


The shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, said: “The scandal of child ill-health is a long-standing, growing and urgent challenge. It should be a matter of shame that a child’s health is so closely linked to poverty and that where and in what circumstances you grow up can dramatically affect your life chances.


“Evidence shows the link between deprivation and poor health in childhood, so with child poverty on the rise, the need for action becomes more acute. The UK has one of the worst childhood obesity rates in western Europe. Tooth decay is the single most common reason why children aged five to nine require admission to hospital. Around 13% of boys and 10% of girls aged 11-15 have mental health problems.


“When it comes to our children we should be ambitious. It’s time we invested properly in the health of the next generation. That means the sort of bold action we are outlining today to tackle obesity and invest in mental health provision. Labour will put children at the heart of our health strategy and put measures in place to make Britain’s children the healthiest in the world.”


The £250m child health fund would be paid for by halving the amount the NHS spends on management consultants each year, Labour claimed. The money would be used to expand the public health workforce and help with promotional schemes. The opposition said England has lost 8% of its health visitors since January 2016, and 15% of school nurses since 2010.


Within 100 days of a victory for Jeremy Corbyn on 8 June, Labour would produce a plan to halve childhood obesity within a decade. A new child health bill would write into law the ambition for the UK’s children to be the healthiest in the world and require all government departments to have a strategy in place.


An index of child health would measure progress against international standards and report annually on four key indicators: obesity, dental health, under-fives – including breastfeeding, immunisation and childhood mortality – and mental health.



Labour would ban junk food adverts during TV popular with children

7 Mayıs 2017 Pazar

Bad Brexit deal would be disaster for the NHS, says Jeremy Hunt

A bad deal on Brexit would be “a disaster” for the NHS, Jeremy Hunt has said, as he accused the European commission of deliberately interfering in the general election to undermine the Conservatives.


Ramping up the rhetoric of Theresa May, who last week accused the commission of leaking an unflattering account of talks at Downing Street to disrupt the election, the health secretary warned that a good Brexit negotiation was vital for the NHS.


“We’ve got 27 countries lined up against us,” Hunt told BBC1’s Andrew Marr show. “Some of them appear to think that for the EU to survive, Britain must fail.”


He said of the impact on the health service: “If we don’t get a good Brexit outcome, and we don’t protect the economic recovery, the jobs that so many people depend on, whose taxes pay for the NHS, if we get a bad Brexit outcome, that would be a disaster for the NHS.”


However, pressed on the issue, Hunt refused to specify what sort of bad deal this might involve, or to say whether the UK leaving the UK with no deal and defaulting to World Trade Organisation tariffs, would also affect the NHS.


“We’ve been very clear that no deal is better than a bad deal,” he said, adding: “I’m saying that a good deal would be best for the NHS, but obviously, a bad deal would be the worst possible outcome for all our public services. It would be bad for the country.”


On Wednesday, May used an address outside Downing Street launching the election campaign to accuse the European commission of seeking to influence the election.


“The European commission’s negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election which will take place on 8 June,” she said.


May did not specify who this interference was intended to assist. But pushed on the matter, Hunt said he assumed the commission wanted to undermine the Conservatives and help Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party.


“Well, you’ll have to ask them why they chose to do that, but I think the answer is very clear, that they are trying to leak reports that undermine Theresa May’s position,” he said, when asked who the commission favoured.


Asked specifically if the aim had been to harm the Conservatives, he said: “That must be the presumption, and what we’re saying is that they should not be doing that, because it’s an election for the British people to decide.”


May’s accusation baffled Brussels, where the European commission’s chief spokesman, Margaritis Schinas, dismissed the allegations as electioneering.


“We here in Brussels are very busy, rather busy, with our policy work,” he said. “We have enough on our plate.”


The European council president, Donald Tusk, said the stakes of the Brexit talks were “too high to let our emotions get out of hand”.


He added: “We must keep in mind that, in order to succeed, we need today discretion, moderation, mutual respect and a maximum of goodwill.”



Bad Brexit deal would be disaster for the NHS, says Jeremy Hunt

5 Mayıs 2017 Cuma

I’m childless and lonely. I feel moving would help, but my husband isn’t keen

I’m coming to terms with a life that I wasn’t expecting after 20 years of marriage and am struggling to find a route to a new life. My wish is to live by the coast, about 70 miles from our current home.


My husband and I have come through infertility and eight rounds of IVF without children (adoptions and alternatives have been explored). He is nearly 20 years older than me; I am in my mid-40s, and scared of the menopause robbing me of more of my identity. I don’t necessarily consider myself to be over our loss, but I try to be accepting. Yet it has changed our lives in an unbalanced way. He says that children would have been a bonus, which does relieve the pressure but makes me feel lonely in my recovery. To me, it meant more: the validation of being female, and a space in my heart is missing.


I feel that I’m living a life haunted by what might have been. Our house, bought before we started treatment, has many bedrooms, and my job doesn’t have any career prospects although it is in a field I enjoy. I know that it is time to move on and I could work freelance. My husband thinks that I should stay for the security and the benefits, and his worries are contagious, but I don’t know to whom I would leave my worldly goods if I should die after him.


I yearn for peace and quiet, having also been diagnosed with mild autism. When we go on holiday with our dogs, I find the peaceful places so much better for my state of mind. Walking on beaches is accessible and a rare pleasure for me. I struggle at home in mud and frost.


My husband wishes to stay where we are: he enjoys the city, has friends here and goes to sporting events every weekend. I feel resentful often. While my husband has said he will move, it is said grudgingly. I think life is too short and wish I could make him see that we do have more choices than for me to sit at home on antidepressants.


Yet each time we go away, I ruin the holiday with panic attacks about going home to a life in which I feel lost.


I’m sorry about your failed rounds of IVF: in your longer letter, you called it a trauma but you reduced all of it, pretty much, to a single sentence. Yet its impact, not surprisingly, colours the whole of your letter. The other thing that permeated your letter was identity; you talk of it a few times, once directly. I wonder if you feel that, without the children you planned to have, you don’t know who are.


Barbara Levick, a psychoanalytic psychotherapist (bpc.org.uk), feels that you have had “repeated disappointments” and that “perhaps [not surprisingly], you have real difficulty overcoming the loss. How important is the lack of children to you? It seems a major disappointment, but the catastrophic nature of it is not shared by your husband.”


Or perhaps it is, but there didn’t seem to be a sense of you both having really talked about how you feel. Certainly, I felt you hadn’t told your husband about how you feel. I got the impression of two people, living together in this big house, but locked away in their own worlds.


I kept feeling there were little screams of, “What about me, what about me?” all through your letter. What about you? When do you get to do what you want, say how you really feel? I’m a big fan of good therapy, and I would urge you to hunt some out just for yourself (start with your GP). You need a place where you can talk about how you really feel, and discuss what you really want. “People who are mildly autistic,” says Levick, “can really benefit from some one-to-one work.”


Levick also has the feeling that you have difficulty getting what you want, and wonder why that might be. “I think you need to get yourself doing more of what you like,” she says.


Even without what you have been through, what you want doesn’t seem so very much – a move 70 miles away, to live by the sea, to be able to take good walks. You are not asking for something impossible.


Levick explains that sometimes we don’t do things because guilt or fear hold us back in unconscious ways. I would add that we make excuses for what we can’t do and then we can become so used to those excuses that we start to believe them. Levick feels you are “stuck in concrete”.


I wonder if you could rent a little property by the sea? I wonder how close you could come to making things more into what you need/want? And instead of coming up with reasons why not, think “how could I make this happen?”


Your panic attacks are interesting – talking very generally (and not specifically about you), Levick says that “panic attacks are about [suppressed] aggression. We all have to manage our aggression somehow and it’s a positive thing, it keeps us going. But some children growing up maybe aren’t allowed to express their aggression and then, later, if there are circumstances where the person feels very, very angry that can come out as a panic attack.”


I wonder if any of that resonates with you?


Your problems solved


Contact Annalisa Barbieri, The Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU, or email annalisa.barbieri@mac.com. Annalisa regrets she cannot enter into personal correspondence.


Follow Annalisa on Twitter @AnnalisaB



I’m childless and lonely. I feel moving would help, but my husband isn’t keen

2 Nisan 2017 Pazar

Unvaccinated children would be barred from childcare in NSW under new proposals

Parents who oppose vaccinations on conscientious grounds won’t allowed to enrol their children at New South Wales childcare centres under legislation to be introduced by the state opposition.


Labor leader Luke Foley announced the policy on Sunday and said the legislation, set to be introduced this week, would plug the loophole which had allowed specialist anti-vaccination childcare centres to be set up.


The changes won’t affect children who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons, such as a specialised cancer treatment.


“We need to be encouraging vaccinations not discouraging them,” Foley said in a statement.


“Vaccinations are the only way to protect against serious diseases like polio, mumps, whooping cough, meningococcal, diphtheria and tetanus.”


Foley said his plan would also cover family day care operations.


The announcement comes after an unvaccinated NSW girl was diagnosed with tetanus earlier this month. It’s believed the seven-year-old picked up the disease through an open wound on her foot while playing in the garden of her northern NSW home.


The case prompted renewed debate in the north coast region, which has some of the lowest immunisation rates in Australia.



Unvaccinated children would be barred from childcare in NSW under new proposals

2 Şubat 2017 Perşembe

On Time to Talk day, solidarity on mental health would be better than sympathy | Mark Brown

If you have been inundated today with people on Facebook, Twitter and daytime television imploring you to discuss mental health, that is because it is Time to Talk day. Mired in politeness and caution, people with mental health difficulties across the UK have gently requested kindness and understanding. Perhaps you’ve made the right noises and nodded sympathetically. You’ll probably feel you did the right thing, but unfortunately your compassion will not be enough to change anything.


In his novel Things Can Only Get Better, John O’Farrell recalls having the Jamaican poet Michael Smith as a guest at an early 80s university radical poetry evening. Afterwards Smith was turned away from a club for being black. Back at a student house Smith exclaimed: “I want justice!” to be answered by a young woman saying “I can’t give you justice but I can give you a hug.” This is where we’re at with mental health in the UK.


Anyone can endorse nice sentiments. Theresa May raised the issue of the importance of such conversations just last month. But the fact is that people with mental health difficulties often experience shorter, poorer, unhappier lives. In the UK, people diagnosed with schizophrenia run the risk of dying 20 years earlier than the average British person. Those who have psychological problems during childhood earn 25% less than those who didn’t by the age of 50.


Experiencing mental health issues often leads to exclusion. You either take yourself away from others or others take themselves away from you. Suddenly relationships you thought you were driving career into the central reservation at high speed in a tangle of steel and glass. Work, school or college might go wrong. But none of these things cause exclusion. How society treats and stigmatises a person when that happens is what causes exclusion.


If you care about people with mental health difficulties then you have to be prepared to make changes, not just to your attitude but in the way you want your country to work. As a starting point, it would be wise to stop telling people to seek help and support that you know isn’t there. Austerity has gutted our communities of organisations that can make life liveable with mental health issues. Admit that it is not mental ill health that plunges people into crisis, it is the lack of support, protection and assistance that does that.


Mental health treatment is underfunded, so society needs to start paying for it. If people have to leave work because they are in distress do not punish them by forcing them into poverty and then make them beg for the tiniest crumbs of financial support in the form of benefits.


The country we live in does not give second chances and is unlikely to do so without pressure. Opportunities for education, opportunities to find a comfortable place to live, opportunities to progress: all take investment and the political will to pay for them instead of something else. If you really care about people with mental health difficulties think about what you would be prepared to give up in return for their safety, their security and for them to thrive.


We talk about fighting cuts but the money to achieve equality for people with mental health difficulties has never been there. We need to be fighting for a future where supporting and protecting the lives of those experiencing mental distress is not an optional act of kindness but an obligation hard-wired into all of structures and thinking. The man on the street might say that sounds like special treatment, like whining instead of pulling your socks up. But the man on the street will keep saying that until we seize the political initiative. Or until his brain flips over one night and he can’t trust his own thoughts and feelings and suddenly he discovers the world doesn’t work for him any more.


Being in distress hurts. Finding you are treated unequally at such a time even more so. So it’s understandable that people will try to end the pain of exclusion by asking politely to be let back into “normal life” without any fuss. The imbalance of power remains when a dominant majority thinks it is doing a favour by bestowing benevolent and charitable understanding upon an insecure minority. But until that majority is prepared to alter structures, laws and practices that they benefit in favour of those they discriminate against, all we have is warm sentiments.


On this Time to Talk day, fight the rosy glow you’ll feel at having listened to someone’s hard life and remember it is possible to be a lovely person in a discriminatory system. Reflect on what you have heard then think about what must change. Because while your sympathy is welcome, your solidarity and political voice as part of the dominant majority will go further.



On Time to Talk day, solidarity on mental health would be better than sympathy | Mark Brown

28 Ocak 2017 Cumartesi

Quitting EU regulator "would leave UK waiting longer" for new drugs

Ministers are coming under growing pressure to scrap plans to quit Europe’s medicines regulator as part of Brexit, with drug firms saying doing so could force Britons to wait a year longer than patients in the EU to access new drugs.


Labour and leaders of the UK’s pharmaceutical industry fear that patients and the NHS will lose out if Britain gives up its membership of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told MPs last week that he did not expect the UK to continue as a member once it left the EU.


Several EU states, including the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, have already expressed interest in hosting the EMA’s headquarters if and when it relocates from London with its 890 medical, scientific and managerial staff. Hunt said it was likely the EMA would move as a result of Brexit.


The shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, has written to Hunt branding departure from the EMA “reckless and unbelievable” and highlighting the “damaging loss of jobs and wealth from our shores” it would involve.


He said that British people would face “longer waiting periods to access life-saving treatments”. He added: “If we leave the EMA we could, like Canada and Australia, have to wait for many months before being able to buy drugs already available in bigger markets like the EU and the United States.”


The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), which represents drug firms employing about 220,000 people in the UK, voiced similar concerns. Dr Virginia Acha, its executive director for research, medical and innovation, said that Britain being outside the EMA could lead to patients waiting six to 12 months longer than the rest of Europe to receive newly developed medicines because the UK would be a small market rather than part of a large EU-wide one.


“While there is opportunity in creating a bespoke regulatory framework for the UK, if this operates outside of the EMA, the added time, cost and burden of having to seek additional regulatory approval in a separate system is likely to mean British patients’ access to medicines will face even greater delay,” Acha said.


The EMA currently licenses all medicines that manufacturers want to sell in the 28 EU states and some other countries in the European Economic Area. Its resident population of 500 million people represents 25% of the world’s total drug market. If Britain left the EMA and made its own arrangements to regulate drugs, it would be of much less priority to pharmaceutical firms because it would be as little as 3% of the global market, Acha added.


The prime minister, Theresa May, was non-committal on how drugs regulation would work after Brexit when Philippa Whitford, the Scottish Nationalist MP and an NHS doctor, raised it at last week’s prime minister’s questions.


“Leaving the EMA would be bad for patients and bad for the NHS. We should be doing our damnedest to stay inside the EMA, maybe through some form of associate membership,” Whitford said.


The ABPI is lobbying several Whitehall ministries, including Hunt’s Department of Health and David Davis’s Department of Exiting the European Union, to try to ensure the UK retains some form of membership of the EMA. Britain already has its own drugs regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulator Agency (MHRA), which is part of an EMA-led pan-European network of 36,000 national regulators and scientists.


The MHRA already plays a disproportionately large role in the EMA’s work, assessing about 20% of all the drugs the EMA evaluates every year. But it would have to increase hugely in size if it became responsible for approving all new drugs aimed at the British market.


Ashworth has asked Hunt to spell out how much it would cost Britain to have a dedicated national drugs regulator and also said that “regulatory divergence between a post-Brexit Britain and the EU” could lead to job losses in the life sciences industry, a sector May has highlighted as central to the UK’s economic prospects after departure form the EU.



Quitting EU regulator "would leave UK waiting longer" for new drugs

19 Kasım 2016 Cumartesi

Cryonics may be a fantasy. But who would begrudge a dying girl that? | Deborah Orr

There is so much that is distressing about the case of JS, the 14-year-old girl with terminal cancer who wished to be cryonically preserved after death, in the hope that she could be revived when a cure for her rare illness had been discovered. Her mother supported the girl in her wishes; her estranged father did not. So, without the consent of both parents, the child had to apply to the courts for permission for the procedure to take place.


JS and her mother both seem to have been determined to secure the preservation. JS got in touch with a Michigan storage facility and also with a UK charity that offers cryonic preservation and makes travel arrangements. Her maternal grandparents raised the estimated £37,000 to fund the process. After the death of JS, her hospital sent a note to the court, saying that their patient’s mother had been too preoccupied with complex postmortem arrangements to be “fully available” for her daughter as she died.


It seems cruel, placing that observation in the public domain, in reference to a woman whose daughter lost her life just a month ago. A lot of people will be familiar with the weird displacement activities that are indulged when a relative is dying. As my father died of cancer, his family fretted over whether he was eating enough and drinking enough water. The last time I offered Dad water, he said to me, very crossly: “Deborah. Enough.”


When my mother was dying of cancer, I got rid of the piano to make space for a bed in the living room, called private ambulance companies and contacted local hospices and care homes, trying with immense futility to arrange for her to be brought the 400 miles from Airdrie to London. Would I allow myself to be taken over by my child’s fantasy of future life? I fear I might.


How easy things were when we all agreed that all good children – and adults – go to heaven. My parents had always seemed to me very pragmatic in their atheism and their belief that this life was all there was. I was hugely shocked when my father, faced with his own death, said: “I didn’t think this would happen to me.” If anything, I was even more shocked when my mother said the same thing, just six years later. I’d had cancer myself in the interim, and had stared hard at the prospect of my own death. I’m absolutely certain that it’s going to happen to me. My doleful preoccupation is with how long I’ve got.


As for the father in the case, who also has cancer, he seems to be the ultimate example of a man who is clever but not wise. His objections included worries that she might be revived in the future and be unhappy and isolated. He thought it through. Unbelievable, really. He took a dying child’s complete fantasy, of a rebirth that medical science does not offer and is never likely to, imagined how things might pan out if this wasn’t a fantasy, and decided he was going to deny his child because his verson of this fantasy didn’t end happily. Also, he’s on benefits, and expressed concern about becoming liable for costs.


Yet one feels for this man too. Even this brief vignette of his psyche explains why he was bitterly estranged from his wife and daughter. Neither mother nor child had seen him for many years. Yet still, when they asked something of him in their baleful situation, he said no. Eventually he came round, saying he would agree if he could see his daughter’s body after she died; they said no, in turn. That’s how high-conflict family fractures go: one person says no and the other says no right back, the first chance they get.


It’s possible too, that it was the need for a court order that made the whole thing real to the mother and daughter, encouraged them to pin down details, check out logistics, make costings, seek funding. The case has certainly made things real for the rest of us.


The judge in the case, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, was at pains to emphasise that in granting permission he was not endorsing cryonics. Rather, he suggested that there was a need for regulation to be drawn up. I can’t help feeling that the regulation of a few exploitative, science fiction-based companies can only give an imprimatur of seriousness to ghastly people who exploit the human fear of death. These places don’t need regulating. They need exposing as morbid confidence tricksters.


In the absence of religion, humans still have philosophy to help those in distress make sense of life and death. At its best, religion is just a theatrical version of philosophy with a comforting final act. Even the resolutely irreligious understand the importance of a funeral – because funerals are for the living.


That’s why it’s easy to see the mother as even more tragic than the daughter. Perhaps she believed in her daughter’s fantasy too. In that case, she is likely to spend the rest of her life tracking progress in the treatment of her daughter’s illness. If that cure ever comes, this might be the point at which she will have to accept that her child is really dead. It’s a miserable thought. One can only hope that she knew what she was doing – offering false but compassionate hope to a child who didn’t want to die.



Cryonics may be a fantasy. But who would begrudge a dying girl that? | Deborah Orr

3 Kasım 2016 Perşembe

Hard Brexit would mean patients waiting years for new drugs – report

A hard Brexit would lead to the loss of scientific funding for the UK drug industry and would mean patients waiting much longer for life-changing medicines, a thinktank has warned.


The report by the Public Policy Projects notes that patients, taxpayers and drugmakers benefit from a shared clinical trials and drug approvals process between the UK and the EU. This would be lost under a hard Brexit, which could mean years of delays before vital new drugs come on to the UK market – and £144bn of lost sales for the UK life sciences industry by 2020. A hard Brexit would mean the UK having no access to the single market.


Stephen Dorrell, a former Tory health secretary who heads the thinktank, said the government must be equally focused on Brexit’s implications for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as it was on banking and the car industry. Life sciences contribute £60bn a year to the UK economy and employ 220,000 people.


Dorrell, who also chairs the NHS Confederation, warned that a hard Brexit would “take ourselves out of the scientific mainstream and thereby undermine the vitality of the British life sciences”. The UK life sciences, which David Cameron described as a “jewel in the crown”, risked being demoted to a “second-tier player”, Dorrell added.


The report, backed by healthcare consulting firm QuintilesIMS, argues that access to the single market is vital for drugmakers, ensuring free movement of scientists and preventing a brain drain. It says students should be taken out of the migration count.


Theresa May’s government has promised to make good the loss of the €8.8bn (£7.9bn) in scientific funding the UK received from the EU last year. But Dorrell said it was just as important to ensure that UK science remained at the heart of the European scientific community.


Luke Tryl, author of the report, said: “If we were to put [UK research and development] at risk, that would be highly reckless.”


The pro-EU group Scientists for EU says it knows of 41 foreign researchers who have refused to take UK posts or are thinking of refusing because of the Brexit vote, and of 100 who have already left or are planning to leave Britain. There have also been incidents of British scientists being dropped from EU projects owing to funding concerns.


The report highlights the importance of regulatory alignment. Tryl said if UK drugmakers were forced to choose between launching medicines in the UK and the EU, they would choose the latter market with its 500 million consumers rather than the former with its 60 million. The report points to Switzerland, noting that the Swiss authorisation agency works closely with the European Medicines Agency under mutual recognition agreements.


Another blow would come from pharmaceutical companies relocating. Japan’s drugmakers – at least 18 have R&D operations in the UK – have already warned they would move to wherever the EMA, currently based in London, relocates.


But UK companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca are pushing ahead with investment plans despite the Brexit vote, and US biotech firm Alnylam said in September that it would base its European drug development team in Berkshire.



Hard Brexit would mean patients waiting years for new drugs – report

31 Ekim 2016 Pazartesi

Without cholesterol, we would die

Low cholesterol and its consequence


Previously, we have seen that cholesterol is a critical element of our cells and tissues (1). In addition, scientific evidence suggests that high cholesterol is not necessarily harmful, but offers a protective effect against brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (2). At this point, we should ask the opposite question: what about if we have too little cholesterol? What are the consequences?


Without cholesterol, we would die!


It is well known today that cholesterol performs several important functions in the body. One of the best important is not the most important function of cholesterol is to assist the proper regulation of the immune system. Indeed, people who have a low blood cholesterol have an anergic immune system, i.e. a lack of reaction by the body’s defense mechanisms to foreign substances (Vredevoe et al. 1998). In other words, your body cannot fight off pathogens, such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi. Without cholesterol, the different cells involved in an immune response (such as macrophages, lymphocytes, etc.) cannot recognize the invaders and destroy them. Interestingly, it was shown that the LDL particles are the ones needed for an adequate immune response (Masterjohn 2007). These particles neutralize microbes and toxins before they cause any damage to the tissues/organs. And we call these LDL particles bad cholesterol! Without them, we would be dead! Another fact is that a low blood cholesterol increases our risks of developing tuberculosis.


More importantly, a sufficient supply of cholesterol to the immune system is critical to eliminate cancer cells. Indeed, cholesterol is needed to slow down the progression of cancer. In addition to cholesterol, saturated fats, like palmitic and myristic acids, are also necessary for an optimum immune system. These fats are found in tropical oil such as coconut oil. Would this fact explain why Asian people have a lower rate of cancer than North Americans?


 


Is cholesterol protective not causative of heart disease?


There is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that microbial infections are one of the primary drive force of plaque accumulation in the arteries of the heart (5, 6). In support of this, a lack of buccal hygiene considerably increases your risk of heart disease (7). Some researchers have noticed that people who suffered from a heart attack also had the flu a few days prior (8, 9). It seems that those microorganisms change the structure of the blood vessels leading to inflammation and an accumulation of plaques at the sites of injury. Based on this evidence, we can propose that cholesterol actually minimizes the risk of developing heart disease via the elimination of dangerous pathogens. Indeed, it seems to be the case (10).


It is time to end this war on cholesterol. Science is very clear; cholesterol does not cause heart disease. On the contrary, cholesterol is a vital element of a vibrant health by making sure the immune system is strong, by being a critical component of vitamin D synthesis, by helping the body make sex hormones, among other functions.


  1. http://blogs.naturalnews.com/fast-track-get-smarter/

  2. http://blogs.naturalnews.com/high-cholesterol-not-think/

  3. Vredevoe, D.L., Woo, M.A., Doering, L.V., Brecht, M.L., Hamilton, M.A., and Fonarow, G.C. 1998. Skin test anergy in advanced heart failure secondary to either ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 82(3): 323-328.

  4. Masterjohn, C. 2007. Cholesterol and stroke. Wise Traditions in food, farming and the healing Arts 8(3): 28-38

  5. Ravnskov, U., High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis. Qjm 96(12): 927-934

  6. Colpo, A. The great cholesterol con. Anthony Colpo, Etats-Unis.

  7. de Oliveira, C., Watt, R., and Hamer, M. 2010. Toothbrushing, inflammation, and risk of cardiovascular disease: results from Scottish Health Survey. Bmj 340: c2451.

  8. Mattila, K.J. 1989. Viral and bacterial infections in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Intern Med 225(5): 293-296.

  9. Grau, A.J., Buggle, F., Becher, H., Zimmermann, E., Spiel, M., Fent, T., Maiwald, M., Werle, E., Zorn, M., Hengel, H., and Hacke, W. 1998. Recent bacterial and viral infection is a risk factor for cerebrovascular ischemia: clinical and biochemical studies. Neurology 50(1): 196-203.

  10. Ravnskov, U. 2000a. The Cholesterol Myths. New Trends Publishing.


Without cholesterol, we would die

12 Ekim 2016 Çarşamba

If GPs’ receptionists need retraining, would Les Dawson videos help? | Peter Bradshaw

The government says that it is funding training to help GPs’ receptionists to be more sensitive to patients’ needs. Receptionists must decide which patients are a priority, as pressure on them increases by the day, and their allegedly brusque demands for symptom details are hurtful.


Perhaps these receptionists will be sent to a special school where they will study old videos of Les Dawson doing his strange drag act as the woman who can’t quite bring herself to say indelicate things. Her voice dies out to silence halfway through the sentence, while the rubbery lips continue to mouth the words. So the Les Dawson-trained receptionist will say: “So sir, you’ve got a problem [inaudible whisper, lips moving emphatically] downstairs in the front-bottom waterworks department?”


Of course, this is no good if you’re talking to the patient on the phone. The person who actually needs this sensitivity training is my wife, who, when I plaintively inform her I have flu-like symptoms, gasps something like: “Influenza? Like the Spanish flu of 1918 that killed 50 million people? Oh, my God, we have to inform the council and the army and seal off the house.”


Uneasy elevations


Lady Chakrabarti is coming in for criticism on the subject of schools. But that isn’t exactly why her recent elevation makes me uneasy. I wonder if Jeremy Corbyn ever says that his other shadow cabinet ministers bring him problems, but Shami Chakrabarti brings him solutions? That is how Margaret Thatcher used to describe David Young, the dynamic chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. In 1984 she made him a life peer, and as Lord Young of Graffham he was elevated into cabinet, first as minister without portfolio, then secretary of state for employment and then for trade and industry. He had a very substantial government career, without ever having to suffer the indignity of pinning on a rosette or ringing on doorbells, or kissing babies – the ordeal, in short, of having to persuade the tiresome public to vote for him. He was a loyal Thatcherite partisan who made cabinet colleagues restless, particularly Norman Tebbit, because he never earned his spurs at the ballot box. Now, like others who have followed his trajectory, Chakrabarti has the chance to wield power, swathed in ermine. Mightn’t it be better for her to renounce her title, like Tony Benn, and fight an election?


Bush whacking


One the creepiest aspects of Donald Trump’s “locker room” tape was the 15 microseconds of fame it conferred on Billy Bush, cousin of George W Bush Jr, the talkshow host who was heard submissively and supportively giggling along to Donald’s sexual assault brags. Poor, pathetic Billy Bush, who loses his job, gets the odium, but doesn’t get to participate in Donald’s satanic celebrity status. One of the great undiscussed things about this kind of pathology is how the bully always needs a beta male, a lower-ranking wingman and yes man to validate the groping and the harassment.


Billy Bush and Donald Trump, the world’s least charming double act, were predicted in Neil LaBute’s icily prescient1997 movie, In the Company of Men. Howard, played by Matt Malloy, is a nerdy office worker who has no success with women. He falls under the spell of macho alpha dog Chad, played by Aaron Eckhart, who is similarly unable to get dates. Chad gigglingly persuades Howard to join him in a misogynist revenge plan to break the heart of a hearing-impaired woman who works in their office. It starts as a nasty joke and becomes a nasty reality. Watch the movie, and you can imagine the relationship of Billy and Donald.



If GPs’ receptionists need retraining, would Les Dawson videos help? | Peter Bradshaw

10 Ekim 2016 Pazartesi

Doctors would all support Obamacare if they saw the vast inequality that I do | Celine Gounder

When Americans head to the polls in November, they’ll be deciding the fate of the Affordable Care Act, what Barack Obama has called “the most important healthcare legislation enacted in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965”. Over the past decade, healthcare providers have observed the rollout of Obamacare and its net-positive impact on their patients and their practice of medicine.


But how will they vote? Data reported by the New York Times last week suggests that different kinds of doctors tend to have very different political views. My experiences lead me to believe that this empathy gap can be traced to the mix of patients that clinicians care for. The more doctors get out of their privilege bubble, the more likely they are to support keeping, and strengthening, the ACA.


All doctors bear witness to the lives of others. But whom we meet depends in part on what insurance we accept. Medical specialists including cardiologists and orthopedic surgeons and are less likely to take patients on Medicaid than are primary care doctors, pediatricians and infectious-disease docs.


Poverty, discrimination and other social factors also increase the risk of certain diseases such as HIV, hepatitis, childhood asthma, obesity, high blood pressure and depression. So certain medical specialists, like me, see a higher proportion of patients from backgrounds vastly different from our own. Call it empathy boot camp.


One of my patients has been to the hospital six times in as many months because her asthma flares up every time she smokes crack cocaine. She lives with her elderly mother and can’t move, and it’s hard for her to quit when most of her neighbors smoke crack too. Another of my patients had PCP, a severe pneumonia related to HIV/Aids, which required treatment with multiple medications. She left the hospital against our advice because she doesn’t feel comfortable asking family, friends or neighbors to look after her kids.


I have another patient who bounces around from hospital to hospital looking for safety from her abusive partner. Another patient with advanced Aids refused to go to a nursing home where he would have gotten help taking his dozens of medications, three square meals a day, substance abuse treatment services and physical therapy. He was afraid of losing the apartment he shared with his HIV-uninfected girlfriend, leaving her homeless. He died. This is just a sample of patients I saw in one month.


My patients have shown me it’s nearly impossible to get someone healthy when they don’t have stable housing. I’ve learned that if my goal is to help people get better, I’ve got to be pragmatic. I’ve realized that most people with an opioid addiction will never be opioid-free. But with medication-assisted treatment (using substances like methadone, buprenorphine and naloxone), they can become functioning members of society, return to work and resume their roles as caregivers of children or ageing parents.


I’ve even come to believe in safe injection sites, where people can use heroin and cocaine under the supervision of healthcare workers. Not only are they less likely to overdose, but they’re also channelled into testing and treatment. I used to think it was unfair for transgender women to want their breast implants covered by insurance when equally flat-chested cisgender women have to pay for their own cosmetic surgery. But then I saw the harm that comes from injecting industrial grade silicone.


As doctors, we have the privilege of crossing social divides when most others don’t. With that comes a responsibility to our patients and our country that goes beyond our vote. We know all too well what’s at stake.



Doctors would all support Obamacare if they saw the vast inequality that I do | Celine Gounder

7 Ekim 2016 Cuma

Delay to curbs on toxic shipping emissions "would cause 200,000 extra premature deaths"

A push by the shipping and oil industries for a five-year delay to curbs on toxic sulphur emissions would cause an extra 200,000 premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease, according to an unpublished International Maritime Organisation (IMO) study.


Fatalities from illnesses such as asthma were not covered by the leaked paper, which was based on shipping satellite data and modelling work.


The shipping industry is by far the world’s biggest emitter of sulphur with SOx levels in heavy fuel oils up to 3,500 times higher than those in current European diesel standards for vehicles. A single large cruise ship can reportedly burn as much fuel as whole towns, and emit more sulphur than 7m cars.


At the end of October, an IMO meeting in London will decide whether to cap the sulphur content of shipping fuels by 2020 or 2025. Current levels can reach 3.5% but the cap would limit them to 0.5%.


The 2020 deadline faces fierce resistance from the oil and gas industry association, IPIECA, and Bimco, a global shipping group, which argue that there is not enough low-sulphur fuel available to meet the global demand that the measure would spur.


The EU has thrown its weight behind 2020, unilaterally imposing the new IMO standard from then. With China enforcing similar emissions control zones, the new benchmark for 2020 is thought likely to pass, although the US and large flag states’ positions remain wildcards.


James Corbett, one of the report’s lead authors, told the Guardian that any slippage on the 2020 start date risked grave consequences.


“An IMO policy implemented on time in 2020 could reduce the health burden on coastal communities, particularly in Asia, Africa and Latin America,” he said. “The inverse is also true. A delay would ensure that health impacts from sulphur emissions persisted in coastal communities that are exposed, where shipping lanes are most intense and communities most densely populated.”


Egypt, Panama, Japan, India, Singapore, the Philippines and China would be among the countries hardest hit, Corbett added.


Sveinung Oftedal, Norway’s lead negotiator at the IMO, said that domestic health concerns had now overtaken fears about the acidifying effects that sulphur has on Scandinavia’s lakes and rivers.


“Air pollution from shipping is not just a local or regional, but a global, problem,” he said. “The question is whether we can really continue to accept its effects, and the answer is: no, we cannot. The 2020 deadline is needed and it is achievable.”


But resentment in the beleaguered shipping trade is unmistakeable, and a sign of future fights to come in the IMO over shipping’s CO2 emissions, which roughly equal those from aviation.


“Most shipping companies are not turkeys voting for Christmas,” an industry source said. “They’re under the impression that a decision to delay to 2025 would be of collective economic benefit. In the real world, shipowners are bleeding money. There is total depression in the industry.”


Thousands of container ships belonging to Hanjin, south Korea’s biggest shipping firm, were left adrift on the world’s oceans carrying a £14bn cargo, after the firm filed for bancruptcy last month.


The International Chambers of Shipping (ICS) says that imposing the new benchmark in 2020 would cost industry an additional $ 50-100bn a year, owing to the cost of low-sulphur fuels.


Ships today mostly run on cheap blends of the residues and remainders left over from the refining and distillation of crude oil for aircraft jet fuel and automobile diesel.


Bimco argues that a premature move to low-sulphur fuels could have knock-on inflationary effects for other fuels, as increased diesel demand overwhelms supply.


Lars Robert Pedersen, Bimco’s deputy secretary-general, told the Guardian: “Quite frankly, if the IMO decides to ignore these very concrete facts, ships will start to use other fuel streams and there will then obviously be a shortage in those streams and a potential disruption in the flow of energy to supply world markets.”


Corbett estimates the total cost of the measure at $ 30bn, compared to a value of seaborne trade approaching $ 5tn in the South China Sea alone. Supporters of an early sulphur cap say that its effect on commodity prices such as shoes or bananas would be little more than a few cents.


Crucially, a second IMO report seen by the Guardian finds that enough refineries will be available in 2020 to guarantee the future availability of a low-sulphur fuel supply for all the world’s ships.


“In all scenarios, the refinery sector has the capability to supply sufficient quantities of marine fuels with a sulphur content of 0.5% m/m or less … to meet demand for these products, while also meeting demand for non-marine fuels,” it says.


A capacity shortage in 2020 would be the only grounds for IMO delegates to delay the proposal, under its terms of reference, which some fear could then be extended indefinitely.


In a reflection of differing opinions in the sea freight trade, the ICS is neutral on the timeline for phasing out sulphur, while calling for a speedy resolution of the issue.


The oil industry too is ambivalent. One analyst with close knowledge of the issue said: “Major oil companies such as Shell and BP don’t have a problem with a move to cleaner fuel in the shipping sector because they have advanced refineries which could sell higher value fuels and increase their revenues and potentially, their profits.”


Later this month, a global CO2 data collection system for ships will be launched. Neither shipping nor aviation firms are covered by the Paris climate agreement, although the ICS has called for the UN’s climate pledging system to be extended to the industry.



Delay to curbs on toxic shipping emissions "would cause 200,000 extra premature deaths"

16 Eylül 2016 Cuma

Trump forms anti-abortion coalition and would ban public funding for procedure

Donald Trump on Friday named one of the nation’s top anti-abortion activists to his campaign coalition, in the clearest signal yet that the presidential candidate has fully embraced Republicans’ typically harsh stance against abortion.


Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B Anthony List, a group that works to elect Republican, anti-abortion women, will chair the loose coalition of conservative, anti-abortion rights leaders who are working to elect the Republican nominee. Trump’s campaign also announced that he would commit to a law banning public funding of abortion.


The appointment is a sharp about-face for both Dannenfelser, formerly one of Trump’s most vocal critics, and the Republican presidential nominee. Although he has espoused harsh anti-abortion positions, Trump has nevertheless spent much of the campaign out of step with the anti-abortion establishment – praising Planned Parenthood and, conversely, calling for the punishment of women who have abortions illegally.


In response, anti-abortion groups have sometimes accused Trump of being ignorant of their positions.


On Friday, Dannenfelser signaled that her group considered Trump’s policies to be wholly in line with the anti-abortion movement’s priorities. Trump “doubled down [on his] commitments to the pro-life movement,” Dannenfelser said. “The contrast could not be clearer between the two tickets, and I am proud to serve as national chairwoman for Donald Trump’s pro-life coalition.”


The announcement is a further sign that Trump has succeeded in wooing social conservatives who once viewed the Manhattan real estate magnate with suspicion and chimes with his choice of Mike Pence, governor of Indiana, as his running mate. The former congressman is credited with laying the blueprint for the Republican party’s crusade against Planned Parenthood.


Trump has only recently claimed to oppose abortion. In 1999, in his last public statement on abortion before he flirted with a presidential run, Trump proclaimed himself to be “very pro-choice”. He first declared he was “pro-life” in 2011 at an annual conservative confab.


During the Republican primaries, Dannenfelser was one of the loudest voices to oppose Trump, calling on Iowa caucus-goers in a January letter to “support anyone but Donald Trump”. “We are disgusted by Mr Trump’s treatment of individuals, women, in particular,” the letter read. “Trump … has through the years made disparaging public comments to and about many women.”



Reproductive rights groups immediately condemned Marjorie Dannenfelser’s addition to Trump’s campaign.


Reproductive rights groups immediately condemned Marjorie Dannenfelser’s addition to Trump’s campaign. Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images

Her comments came as Trump repeatedly equivocated on abortion rights and one of the anti-abortion movement’s most cherished goals, the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood.


A little more than a year ago, Trump said he could not commit to defunding Planned Parenthood without weighing whether the group was “good for women”. Trump later committed to stripping federal funds from Planned Parenthood – “because I am pro-life” – in a February primary debate. But he added that he admired Planned Parenthood’s work on reproductive health, saying: “Millions of millions of women – cervical cancer, breast cancer – are helped by Planned Parenthood.”


A month later, Trump said he would support “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if the procedure were illegal, comments that anti-abortion groups criticized as out of step with their mission. In April, he further angered anti-abortion groups by saying he believed abortion should remain legal. “The laws are set,” he said. “And I think we have to leave it that way.”


His campaign in both cases quickly sought to undercut his comments, claiming the candidate believed in punishment only for abortion providers and saying Trump would appoint anti-abortion nominees to the supreme court.


In Friday’s announcement, Trump committed for the first time to signing the Hyde amendment into law. The amendment is an annual budget rider that prohibits federal Medicaid funding from paying for abortion services. Making the amendment law is the strictest position Trump has staked out on abortion funding, although it is not surprising. Trump, in a January opinion column, called public funding for abortion “an insult to people of conscience”.


Hillary Clinton, by contrast, in an apparent first for a major party candidate, has promised to repeal Hyde.


Reproductive rights groups immediately condemned Dannenfelser’s addition to Trump’s campaign.


“Let’s be clear: just like Donald Trump, Susan B Anthony List hasn’t done a thing to empower women and everything to advance an extreme agenda that aims to entirely end women’s access to abortion in America, often even for survivors of rape, incest, and women whose health is endangered,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a reproductive rights group.


“Between his support from the dangerously similar anti-choice and alt-right movements, and his record of misogyny, we know Donald Trump will be a disaster for women in the White House.”



Trump forms anti-abortion coalition and would ban public funding for procedure

12 Eylül 2016 Pazartesi

I used to fear working NHS night shifts would kill me

A patient came to see me at my GP practice the other day. “I know you from the hospital,” he said. “It was you I saw on the night I went to A&E.” He paused, and then added: “You seemed tired”.


I couldn’t recall the event – it occurred during the A&E rotation of my GP training in 2014. At the time I felt that night work was killing me slowly. Driving home in the mornings I used to fear it might kill me quite suddenly. In that particular job I was obliged to alternate so frequently and jarringly between day and night work that after three months my life had blurred into a homogeneous grey fog in which I took pills to go to sleep and pills to wake up again. Driving was hazardous but working wasn’t straightforward either. On one occasion I fell asleep while phoning a patient’s relative in the middle of the afternoon. After three months I was struggling, my heart was skipping beats and I was so depressed that I started to think that maybe crashing my car wouldn’t be such a bad idea.


A&E was dreadful, but the doctors working there have one important benefit; they are generally guaranteed a break, of some sort. By contrast, the doctors working unsupported on the wards manage their own time and only take breaks if they reach the end of their jobs list. All too often that doesn’t happen, the bleep doesn’t stop bleeping.


The system is presently unsafe for doctors, I’d argue that it is unsafe for patients as well. A doctor who isn’t safe to drive isn’t safe to work. It’s hazardous, it has been for years but it’s a necessary evil and the prevailing attitude appears to be that we have to accept the risk.


There are plenty of factors maintaining the status quo, the availability of resources, both financial and human, and the expectations of other staff members, and patients to name a few. I would suggest there is another important but unspoken element to this that shouldn’t be overlooked. It involves the doctors themselves.


Doctors are a mixed bunch but there are common threads discernable in their psychological makeup. They are generally competitive high-achievers who are sensitive to social pressure. They often strive tirelessly to achieve the best outcomes for their patients, or to invert that subtly, to be the best doctor they can be.


This ideal best doctor character is a tower of strength, indefatigable and endlessly resourceful, no challenge too great, no demands too exhausting. It’s the ideal that society looks up to and praises, it is one that the average doctor is happy to embody. Unfortunately best doctor is indispensible, doesn’t need sleep and doesn’t leave work unfinished for colleagues to sweep up. Best doctor stands nobly in a proud tradition of colleagues who have undergone the same trials, nay, worse ones, as our forebears are ever eager to remind us.


Best doctor doesn’t moan about hardships, they are battle scars, a source of pride, evidence to show that this doctor stands shoulder to shoulder with the best of them.


The flawed diurnal human pulling the levers behind the facade is just going to have to cope. If they are too tired to drive their car and have to drink alcohol to make it all go away, well, that’s just the price that has to be paid.


Making night shifts safer would require substantial system changes to moderate demand, but alongside them an obligatory level of self-care for doctors. Anything less stringent will simply be ignored.


Unfortunately our chances of witnessing such changes are laughably remote. The current political will, with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt as its hapless mouthpiece, is more geared towards exploiting these convenient character traits than compensating for them. As the system is placed under increasing strain I expect that the situation will only get worse.


If you would like to write a blogpost for Views from the NHS frontline, read our guidelines and get in touch by emailing sarah.johnson@theguardian.com.


Do you work in the NHS? Please take our survey and tell us whether bullying is a problem and how it affects your work


Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more pieces like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.



I used to fear working NHS night shifts would kill me

16 Ağustos 2015 Pazar

24 Ocak 2015 Cumartesi

If I had been queen for a day, this would be a month of genuine foods, not detoxers’ nauseous green slime | Christie Watson

I would ban juicing in January. Absolutely. Prison for all juicers. For any person skulking about Holland &amp Barrett looking for spirulina or chia seed or stevia or aloe vera anything that appears like it may well be excreted from a snail. In truth: no detoxing whatsoever. On New Year’s Eve Gwyneth Paltrow would be escorted to a safe location, to resurface only in February.


I would also force the meals organizations to publish warnings on practically every thing: packets and jars and tins: “Invisible sugar in this foods is addictive and will make you body fat and sick”. Or: “You may as effectively give your little one a cigarette as feed them this, because the extended-term well being consequences are as severe”. And extra hormones in meat and milk would be outlawed. We have ample super-size young children hitting puberty at the age of eight previously.


In each and every store there would be a greater assortment of fresh, unadulterated, reasonably priced foods and drink to outweigh their additive-ridden, vitamin-deficient counterparts stuffed with secret sugar. With actual meals filling our supermarkets, and fake meals labelled accordingly, we wouldn’t want extreme food obsessions in January.


My flirtation with juicing started on 1 January 2014. “If it seems to be like Angel the hamster would consume or drink it, then it is healthier. It’s excellent for your insides,” I informed my suspicious children, handing every a glass of green slime. For three tiny servings, the juicer had devoured twenty quid’s worth of natural greens, but I was established to ply the little ones with micro-nutrients. And then I tasted it myself. I felt dangerously nauseous, my young children hated me, and I was miserable.


The outlawing of detoxing would make certain no more: one) individuals feeling dizzy, unable to focus or drive two) working to the toilet with diarrhoea, a consequence of the three cucumbers, the pack of spinach, and the 17 sticks of celery it will take to make each and every shot three) generating daily journeys to foodie Borough Marketplace for huge quantities of veggies four) taking painkillers for the headaches and abdomen cramps this diet program causes and five) even thinking about juicing raw kale, which tastes so rank I can get rid of bodyweight now just remembering it.


“Instead of all this weird overall health juice,” my 10-12 months-previous asked, “can you make it your new year’s resolution up coming year to have enjoyable? Obtaining enjoyable is a lot far better for your insides.” A clever lady, my daughter. The variety of smart courtier a queen would want all around.



If I had been queen for a day, this would be a month of genuine foods, not detoxers’ nauseous green slime | Christie Watson

31 Temmuz 2014 Perşembe

How Sweet It Would Be: National Law Would Tax the Stacks Of Sugar In Soda

If you want to see anything really scary, go to the website Sugar Stacks and seem at the pyramids of sugar cubes stacked up subsequent to soda containers. That twelve-ounce can of Coke (now seen as a little serving) has 10 sugar cubes subsequent to it. The 20-ounce Mountain Dew has 19-and-a-half. And the 64-ounce Double Gulp Coke offered at 7-Eleven has 45—45!—cubes of sugar piled alongside it. That is how a lot of cubes or teaspoons of sugar a person consumes every single time they drink one of these sodas.


America has a sugar addiction issue that rivals our addiction to cigarettes a generation ago and it is fueled by the very same types of marketing and advertising campaigns once (and, in some ways, nonetheless) employed by tobacco companies. Soda consumption is a significant purpose why:



  • Virtually 26 million Americans, eight.three percent of the population, have diabetes, in accordance to the American Diabetes Association American Diabetes Association.

  • 79 million grownups, 35 % of the grownup population, have prediabetes.

  • Obesity in the U.S. has risen from about 15 % of the population to about 35 percent more than the past forty many years.

  • The estimated cost of weight problems-connected medical care is $ 190 billion a yr.


Photo: Sugarstacks.com Photo: Sugarstacks.com

Photo: Sugarstacks.com



Comparable measures have been positioned on the ballot in numerous cities and localities and so far each has been defeated, buried in a barrage of campaign paying funded by the soda market. The SWEET Act will encounter the exact same opposition and has little possibility of passage in today’s congress. Nevertheless it is vital that such efforts be experimented with, that the pot get stirred, that we get started to set off a sustained nationwide conversation about the damage that soda marketing and advertising and consumption is carrying out to our country’s health.


The proposed bill is well thought by means of. Due to the fact the tax is primarily based on the quantity of added sugar—not beverage volume—it goes soon after the real enemy: sugar and the calories that go with it. It also generates an incentive for individuals to switch to drinks that have less sugar.


Far more importantly, probably, the bill also dedicates the income generated from the tax to the Prevention and Public Overall health Fund to support “programs and study created to lessen the human and financial expenses of diabetes, obesity, dental caries and other diet-associated overall health problems.” Based mostly on today’s consumption patterns, the Center for Science in the Public Interest estimates it would raise about $ 10 billion a yr that could fund overall health and schooling programs—like the enormously effective anti-smoking media campaigns that have assisted slash the quantity of smokers in the U.S.


That implies far more individuals all around the country could do what Jaquoby Tyler, now 20, has been undertaking for the last many years. Tyler is portion of a group of young individuals working with Neighborhood Partnership for Youth in Seaside, California, to advertise wholesome living in their neighborhood. He and his pals go into classrooms to speak about health with other youngsters and show them the stacks of sugar cubes they eat with each soda.


“We asked them: ‘Would you eat this much sugar by itself?’” Jaquoby informed me. “They stated no. They weren’t mindful of some of the poor results that consuming that considerably sugar can have like diabetes, heart illness, obesity.”


Opponents will criticize the DeLauro bill as nanny-state overreach and make the argument, primarily based on a couple of modest studies, that soda-tax increases haven’t carried out considerably to alter consumption patterns or obesity costs. But these scientific studies have looked at locations that imposed considerably smaller sized tax levies and that didn’t target the revenues at efforts to reduce consumption. That could be essential. A poll performed by the Area organization for the California Endowment and launched early this year showed that two-thirds of Californians supported a soda tax if the proceeds had been utilised to fund school nutrition and bodily exercise efforts.


An intriguing check will come in November when each San Francisco and Berkeley voters will vote on measures to impose soda taxes of one cent per ounce in Berkeley and two cents an ounce in San Francisco. Berkeley’s measure will direct the funds to the standard fund and call for simple bulk approval. San Francisco’s will reserve the proceeds for health-promotion efforts, which could boost its appeal, but will need to have to get support from two-thirds of voters.


In Mexico, a peso-per-liter tax on soda that started at the starting of 2014 has led to declining sales of sugary drinks, with Coca-Cola Coca-Cola and other beverage businesses reporting product sales declines of two % to three percent for the 1st half of the year. The proceeds of the tax are being targeted at rising entry to fresh water, specially in schools.


Fidel Cortes, who shines footwear in Mexico City, told Bloomberg Bloomberg News in March that he’s consuming fewer sodas because the price climbed. “Before I at times had three Cokes a day, now I’m down to 1 or two,” he said. “It’s simply because the price tag went up.”


Mexico imposed a similar tax on calorie-dense junk food final yr, when it passed the soda tax, and just this month place into spot regulations that will maintain advertisements for soda and junk meals from appearing on afternoon and weekend television packages and ahead of children’s movies in theaters. If Mexico—which consumes far more soda per man or woman than any other nation in the world and has among the highest charges of obesity and diabetes—can regulate marketing, tax soda and use the proceeds to advertise health, why not the U.S.?


Just as early proposals to limit smoking have been dismissed and belittled only to turn into law when public attitudes altered, I think the American people and our political leaders will come to understand how vital it is to limit the consumption of sugary drinks. My colleague at Prevention Institute, Larry Cohen, saw individuals alterations initial-hand as a leader in the battle towards smoking. He helped organize the 1st multi-city no-smoking laws in the nation, shifting the debate in the method. “Soda and sugary drinks are the new tobacco and the fight to minimize their advertising and consumption is the subsequent fantastic public well being battle,” he says.



How Sweet It Would Be: National Law Would Tax the Stacks Of Sugar In Soda

21 Temmuz 2014 Pazartesi

NHS staffing tips: it would be a error to set minimum amounts

nursing

It was never Nice’s intention to mandate a minimum workers to patient ratio, writes Graham Turner. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian




In the wake of the Francis inquiry and Berwick evaluation, Nice’s new risk-free staffing tips, for which I developed the statistical and financial examination, could have brought on surprise by stopping brief of setting minimal staffing levels. Nevertheless doing so would have been a blunder. It would have led to repeated mistakes across management of overall health providers, abdicating accountability for the appropriate completion of checklists and targets, although failing to acknowledge human knowledge.


Many have been hoping for Great to mandate a minimal personnel-to-patient ratio, although that was never the intention. The certainty that comes with establishing a minimal staff ratio is attractive it is basic to ascertain compliance and for that reason simple to hold companies to account. Nevertheless it would have been misplaced. The knowledge of this technique in America and Australia has proved misguided.


Even though sufficient staffing ranges are essential for protected and higher-high quality care, they are not enough to guarantee it. Targets, tips, and checklists permit organisations to abdicate responsibility for ensuring that they are doing the correct factors by just permitting them to report they are doing factors proper, ticking boxes rather than delivering care.


These new safe staffing recommendations demonstrate that gradually the tick-list mentality is altering, but they are not without having issues. The suggestions are, of program, primarily based upon the best obtainable evidence. But is this the correct evidence?


Hospitals are staffed at ward degree, composed of individual individuals with different and typically shifting needs. From shift to shift, the number, dependency and acuity of sufferers on any certain ward might adjust, and therefore so need to staffing.


The right staffing degree may also depend upon the ward speciality, its physical layout, or the time of day. Getting a single ratio would therefore be misleading, specially if this was set at a far more aggregated degree such as by the hospital or believe in.


Nice’s work in this area has however been plagued by a lack of very good high quality information and by the lack of present scientific studies. To date, research has both targeted on the macro level (hospital/believe in) efficiency or on micro level (patient) outcomes, but there is really little function accomplished at ward or clinical staff level exactly where the care is really carried out.


Similarly, most research are plagued by confounding variables such as not observing the good quality of hospital management.


Till there is collection and examination of ward-degree information, in conjunction with management efficiency, we will not know regardless of whether companies are performing the correct factor.


With no this detail, it’s not clear exactly what outcomes at a ward or patient degree are most sensitive to nurse staffing. Crucially, it is also unclear how the employees combine – the combination of registered and unregistered nurses – influences outcomes.


This is yet another spot the recommendations rightly keep silent on. Healthcare assistants (HCA), or unregistered nurses, are clearly not direct substitutes for nurses, but can have an essential role to perform. Nice’s new tips recommend that obtaining a lot more than eight sufferers to 1 nurse on a ward ought to set off a red flag that care may possibly not be satisfactory. Nonetheless, we ought to be searching at how HCAs complement nursing workers and add them to the mix.


Present designs treat all HCAs as equal, but some trusts provide higher education and growth, permitting HCAs to consider on far more very experienced or specialised duties.


A lot more perform is essential to comprehend what components of the HCA position can be moved up to this expert level. Right here, a lot can be realized from the developing planet. Lord Crisp’s fabulous book, Turning the Globe Upside Down illustrates a variety of these, this kind of as being in a position to train pretty much anybody to do C-sections.


While that is obviously an intense instance, we would do properly to contemplate the basic concept more, by taking individual HCAs and coaching them to do a specialised task at a significantly lower price than a entirely skilled nurse.


Nice’s suggestions and the recent inquiries have been created in the wake of surprising circumstances of bad care. It is precisely because of these instances that we require not only to assess staffing ranges, but to reassess what proof we use to decide very good care.


Our see of the NHS and of the nursing position is even now primarily based on the traditional picture of matrons in white caps, but we want to appear at the proof and rethink who is greatest placed to supply care of a substantial quality, and how to ensure that this also represents worth for cash.


Are you a member of our on the internet neighborhood? Join the Healthcare Experts Network to acquire typical emails and unique offers.




NHS staffing tips: it would be a error to set minimum amounts

19 Temmuz 2014 Cumartesi

Assisted dying: "God would realize my wish to end my suffering"

1 of the very first items I did, as the shock numbed – it never fully goes away – was to Google “Dignitas”. I felt I was dropping handle of my existence at least the selection of selecting my death may alleviate the sense of vulnerability I was feeling. But I found that Dignitas is hugely expensive – and anyway, I want to die in my personal bed with birdsong in the garden, or at least in a hospice with trees glimpsed through a window. I really do not want to die in a foreign clinic, miles from home.


The level I am trying to emphasise is that from the extremely starting, the likelihood of getting some option over how and when I die – even if I never use it – would have done so considerably to help with the psychological burden of becoming terminally ill. When I was properly, I was conscious of Dignitas. But I’d never ever stopped to consider the arguments for and towards assisted dying. Now my sickness has brought me face to face with this complex and nevertheless really subjective situation.


Following the formal terminal diagnosis, I have had palliative chemotherapy and radiotherapy. I have also had smart help from a hospice nurse, beneficial assist from a counsellor, and an outpouring of compassionate enjoy from family and close friends.


I have been christened and confirmed, also. Some have referred to this as a rediscovery of my faith, whilst other individuals have understandably concluded that I have been fastening a spiritual seatbelt, just to be on the secure side. But really, I have never ever misplaced my faith – getting unwell has just created it more powerful.


Being aware of I had the alternative to spare my household any added struggling, however – and, above all, the soreness of a probably lengthy and tough death – would support me so considerably now. And if I had been emotionally more powerful, we would all benefit.


Apart from Dignitas, there is the DIY route – suicide. The practicalities appal me, although. Suppose I bodge it? Could I be that cruel to whoever found me? Or suppose my teenage kids located me by error?


The law can flip a confusingly blind eye to deaths at Dignitas and the suicides of the terminally ill, but it will not grapple with the actuality. These ought to not be the only resort for men and women who want option.


So with no Dignitas or suicide, I am effectively trapped. I can’t finish my work as a mom (if a single ever does), nor can I protect my young children from the suffering I could face. We are urged to shield our children with every thing from bike helmets to world wide web porn blockers, but we can not have assist to achieve a swift, dignified finish to depart them with uplifting rather than agonising recollections.


I haven’t really discussed assisted dying with my household due to the fact it’s hypothetical. My son recently remarked, though, that a single would have to be extremely brave to select it, and I agree, although I still want that decision.


If it were achievable, I am only contemplating of assisted dying in the direction of the really finish. I’d carry on wanting to reside as long as I could, but it is individuals ultimate weeks of deterioration, lack of dignity and, as far as I recognize, consistent soreness that I would want to stay away from.


Traditionalists communicate of the sanctity of human daily life: it is not our will but God’s to choose when we die. But the moment we pick therapy, we influence the time of our death. I feel that my God would realize my longing for the decision to steer clear of struggling for my family, and myself. He is, after all, a father.


Other people cite their worry of a “slippery slope” in which virtually everyone gets to be eligible. But certainly we can consider heart from areas the place assisted dying is not abused, such as in Oregon, in the United States, exactly where a Death with Dignity Act has been in force for 16 many years. Only a really modest quantity of sufferers decide on an assisted death – fewer than 80 per 12 months.


Lord Falconer’s Bill has rightly raised numerous problems surrounding assisted dying. It has been so beneficial to study, hear and speak about dying, which still remains a taboo.


As I write, I am relishing the gift my medical doctors have given me of one more wonderful summer. It is a summer season supported by adore but made possible by health-related expertise. How complete it would be if I were in a position to select – ought to I wish – a fantastic ending.


Jane Stephen is a pseudonym. Payment for this article has been donated to Cancer Study United kingdom and the author’s local hospice



Assisted dying: "God would realize my wish to end my suffering"

13 Temmuz 2014 Pazar

Would you give your kidney to a total stranger? | Andrew Anthony

Twenty many years right after she gave up alcohol, Clare Bolitho made a decision she needed to mark the occasion. Her two decades of sobriety had turned her lifestyle close to. She had, by her very own admission, been a reckless alcoholic, twice losing her driving licence. She had also suffered from anorexia, had been sexually promiscuous, a smoker and somebody who was normally not in management of her lifestyle. But right after her alcoholic boyfriend died, she quit drinking in 1989.


She was fortunate to get excellent help from the NHS, like a psychotherapist whom she noticed for twenty years. She also had assist from Alcoholics Anonymous and, surveying how items had turned out, she felt grateful for her “lucky hand of cards”.


“I’ve acquired quite good well being, I’ve been educated, I’ve got ample money and I’ve received a good task,” the 63-year-outdated veterinarian informed me at her pet-filled property a handful of miles outside Wolverhampton. But how to display her appreciation? Buddies suggested her to find the appropriate charity and give money. But Bolitho wanted to give some thing else, she just didn’t know what. Then a single day she occurred to hear a radio programme on a certain kind of altruistic donation and immediately she realised she had found the solution. “Oh brilliant!” she imagined. She abruptly knew that what she wanted to give was 1 of her kidneys.


Not posthumously – she was currently a signatory to the organ donation scheme. As an alternative what Claire made a decision to do was bring forward her minute of corporeal contribution and undergo an operation to remove a kidney even though she was alive and wholesome.


Altruistic kidney donation grew to become legal in Britain in 2006. Until finally then the only people who were allowed to give up their organs had been relatives and near pals of men and women struggling from kidney dysfunction. Wary of the health care hazards connected with any type of major surgery, the authorities had also been keen to discourage a trade in organs which might lead to an exploitative or even coercive romantic relationship in between recipient and donor.


The legislation that was brought in eight years ago was cautiously drawn to stop this kind of outcomes. Donors are not permitted to know the identity of the recipient before or following they give a kidney. But, a bit like adopted children, recipients have the appropriate, if they decide on, to contact their donors following the operation. This way recipients are not produced to really feel any variety of moral – let alone fiscal – obligation.


The very first altruistic kidney transplant took place in 2007. Five more followed that yr. At the time, a lot of believed the supply of donors would be quickly exhausted. “We did the second [altruistic transplant operation] right here in Portsmouth,” recalls Paul Gibbs, a advisor renal and vascular surgeon at Queen Alexandra Hospital. “We imagined it would be a flash in the pan – half a dozen extremely enthusiastic individuals who’d been pushing the situation, and then it would die a death.”


The following yr there were 15 more altruistic kidney transplants, and 15 far more the yr right after that. Then the yearly numbers went like this: 28, 34, 76. It’s estimated that about 120 individuals donated a kidney to a stranger in the twelve months from April 2013 to April 2014. The figures look to be developing practically exponentially. There are close to 20,000 individuals in the United kingdom obtaining kidney dialysis therapy. If the upward trend for donors continued at this current rate, the require for dialysis would be ended within a decade.


But what’s in it for the donor? There is some thing fundamentally counterintuitive about obtaining a healthy organ removed. It goes towards all our most deeply held notions about the part of medicine, of surgery, hospitals and, without a doubt, our bodies. Why would anyone elect to have an essential component of themselves minimize out to give it to an anonymous stranger?


“One exciting facet was how unsupportive my closest buddies had been,” Bolitho says. “My closest buddy is a doctor and she was fairly angry with me. My AA sponsor also did not want me to do it. And I nonetheless do not genuinely know why. My GP did say that it might flag up other people’s feelings of guilt that they are not undertaking it.” Bolitho can be fairly proselytising with men and women she does not know, and despite the fact that wary of banging her personal drum, she is mystified as to why much more folks really don’t donate.


It took practically three years from Bolitho searching into donation to having her kidney eliminated. There is at first a lengthy process of healthcare exams – blood tests, scans, ultra-sounds, mammograms, smears and a lot else apart from. There is also a psychological check in which the donor is quizzed on his or her motivations, expectations and understanding. But most of the delay in Bolitho’s case was down to discovering time to consider 6 weeks off perform.


Were there moments when she had doubts? “No!” she exclaims. “Not at all. The only time was afterwards, because I felt bloody terrible when I came out of hospital, and I’m very fit and get pleasure from physical exercise. And I considered: ‘My God, what have I accomplished?’ I felt really grotty and went to the GP and he stated: ‘Look, you’ve had major surgical procedure. Of program you’re going to truly feel grotty.’”


In numerous respects Bolitho fits the common profile of a kidney donor. She is more than 50, a extended-time blood donor, financially secure, with a strong sense of civic duty. She also has no children and she saw kidney donation as “a way of type of carrying myself on somehow”.


But there are donors from all age groups and walks of daily life, and a surprising amount who are young men. The youngest donor of all so far has been Sam Nagy from Huddersfield. He donated in 2012 when he was just twenty. Throughout a stint as a volunteer working in Kenya, he paid a check out to a hospital where he noticed infants of much less than 6 months with HIV.


“It was very a distressing time,” he recalls. “I couldn’t aid people children, but was there anything at all I could do to assist somebody else? For some cause kidney donation came into my head. I did not know if it was achievable or feasible. I did not know something about it.”


With limited world wide web access, he did what investigation he could, but the following time he phoned property he asked his loved ones to look into it for him. They were concerned but supportive. “They knew it was something I desired to do and so they backed me all the way.”


On his return to England, he went by way of the exams without having a hitch. Following the operation, he came out of hospital following three days but he pulled a stitch, returned to hospital and then contracted an infection. He seems really philosophical about the setback, pointing out that he was in the gym inside three weeks.


“I was really match and wholesome just before the operation and there’s nothing at all I could do then I can’t do now. The stomach muscles are a minor bit tender right after surgery, but that is only for the 1st month.”


Like all of the donors I spoke to, Nagy was reluctant to dwell on his sacrifice. He saw it as a minor inconvenience which he set against the major benefit it presented to someone struggling from kidney dysfunction. The only purpose for discussing what he imagined was basically a private act was to draw interest to a scheme of which numerous people remained ignorant. Nonetheless, he has been attacked on-line by anonymous commenters who have accused him of glory-hunting. About this as well he seems precociously phlegmatic, noting that there will always be people who want to look for damaging explanations.


The recipient of his kidney, Nagy learned in a letter sent to him, turned out to be a 25-12 months-outdated male. He liked the thought that they had been of a similar age. At first he intended to write straight back, but subsequently made the decision to wait.


“The most critical point to me is to know the kidney recipient is match and well. It would have been horrible to know it hadn’t been accepted. Everybody needs it to go to a great individual – not a criminal or an individual who does negative things. But it goes to the particular person who’s the best match genetically. There’s no say from me. I want them all the very best and hope they deal with it effectively. That chapter in my daily life is, I guess, closed now.”


The kidney is NOT a glamorous organ. It has none of the romance of the heart or the splendour of the lungs. But it is a important and small-understood organ. Its most critical occupation is to filter the blood, to remove waste items this kind of as dead cells, further salt and water by way of passing urine – most men and women with innovative renal dysfunction urinate quite minor or not at all. If the blood is not appropriately cleaned, tiredness sets in, the hands and feet start to swell and vomiting is frequent. Without health care intervention, kidney failure is eventually fatal.


There are estimated to be close to 40,000 men and women in this country affected by kidney failure, around half of whom are on dialysis. For the massive vast majority of them, it is a gradual decline over many years or decades. But for Nicholas Evans, the writer of the bestselling book The Horse Whisperer, his wife and her brother the transition from having healthful kidneys to no kidney perform took place inside 24 hours.


In August 2008, Evans went mushroom choosing on his brother-in-law’s Scottish estate. He imagined he had collected Boletus edulis, acknowledged as “ceps”, but in reality he had gathered Cortinarius speciosissimus – deadly webcap. He cooked and served them to his wife and brother-in-law and the following day they all grew to become critically unwell, were taken to hospital and placed on dialysis.


“There are a lot of various facets of being on dialysis,” says Evans, “and possibly the most torturing of them is thirst. Simply because you are not peeing, all the liquid that comes into you has to be taken off and dialysis is that chance to get rid of the extra fluid in your entire body. In my case, and most folks with subsequent to no kidney perform, you have to restrict the intake to a litre a day. But that litre has to contain every thing, which includes fruit, yogurt – every little thing. That is a constant struggle and you are always thirsty and craving liquid. The self-restraint involved… you’d never think how difficult it is.”


Like the bulk of dialysis individuals, Evans was hooked up to a machine three occasions a week for 5 hours a day. But even this method only cleaned 25% of his blood. That meant he felt unwell most of the time: weak, exhausted, functioning on a minimal level of vitality. He remained on dialysis for 3 years, a period he describes as “horrible”. As fruit and greens are large in potassium, which is undesirable for dialysis patients, he had to restrict his diet regime to that of a “couch potato” – stodgy cakes, toast and the like. The diet was tedious, he says, “but it is just the overall feeling of not being correctly alive that is the hardest point.”


He had several gives of kidneys from close friends and loved ones, but it was only when he began to create heart troubles – which is not uncommon with dialysis individuals – that he accepted his daughter’s words and, as outcome, her kidney. “She acquired extremely cross with me and explained she wasn’t getting generous and selfless, she was getting entirely selfish because she desired me to be alive to meet her kids when she had them, which genuinely did it for me.”


Right after the transplant, his daily life substantially improved, but not before a couple of troubles have been conquer. “When you have the operation, with males all the blood that is brought on in the course of the operation goes rushing downhill and you get just the most extraordinary set of genitals, like a prizewinning beetroot at the village fête. Extraordinary to search at and bloody painful to pee by means of!”


One of the items Evans set about carrying out, obtaining returned to a healthful level of fitness, was to aid set up a charity – Give a Kidney – to promote altruistic residing kidney donation. It’s extensively believed that the charity’s arrival in 2011 has been accountable for a important enhance in the numbers of donors.


Most of these involved in the charity are themselves donors, like David Hemmings, a former civil servant and lay magistrate, who is now a trustee of Give a Kidney. Hemmings describes himself as a “dyed-in-the-wool socialist”. His philosophy, he says, is that “if you are in a place to support a person significantly less lucky than your self you just get on with it”.


A noble sentiment, however how several of us genuinely truly feel that variety of altruism? Although most of us would accept that it is morally excellent to help others, the social and biological basis of altruism is hotly contested. We are advised by evolutionary professionals that a specific kind of selfishness is essential to survive and thrive. Yet maybe the most frequent criticism of Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene is that it failed to describe adequately the altruism that we encounter in everyday existence, allow alone gestures such as kidney donation to unknown strangers. And what a gesture it is. As Paul Gibbs explains: “To take away a kidney you need to disconnect the artery that sends blood into the kidney, the vein that drains the blood back into the circulation and last but not least the ureter that drains the urine from the kidney into the bladder.”


Although the surgical procedure tends to be keyhole, the incision needs to be massive ample for the surgeon to attain in and pull out the kidney. So far there have been no main difficulties, but likely issues incorporate bleeding from the vessels, damage to other organs (bowel, liver, spleen), anaesthetic problems and wound troubles, this kind of as infection and hernia formation. Risk of death is typically estimated to be all around one in 3,000, even though most surgeons would argue this overstates the danger.


On the other side of the coin, it is stated that people who donate kidneys have a longer existence expectancy than the regular member of society – if only due to the fact the degree of wellness required to qualify for donation is larger than average. And, in accordance to healthcare research, one healthful kidney can provide significantly the very same outcomes as two healthful kidneys. “With some of our transplant recipients and donors, if you just looked at their blood exams, you wouldn’t know,” says Gibbs.


But although the kidney that the donor keeps may do the task of two thereafter, that is not the case for the one particular that is eliminated. Or rather, there’s a restricted quantity of time that it will function. The latest statistics recommend that 50% of dwell donor kidneys will last amongst twenty and 25 many years after transplantation.


That’s a lengthy volume of time, but for most recipients below 50 it does not constitute a lifetime. So, for instance, the youthful man who received Sam Nagy’s kidney will be seeking for an additional in middle age, if medical science hasn’t by then created an substitute strategy.


Nevertheless, for these twenty or 25 many years he will, all being nicely, have loved a drastically improved quality of daily life thanks to a person who is likely to endure no far more than a handful of weeks’ discomfort. When presented in these terms, kidney donation becomes a challenge we are morally bound to at least consider. And, in reality, a survey in 2011 discovered that eight% of the population would contemplate offering a kidney to a stranger. If only one in 500 of people who regarded went ahead and donated, the transplant waiting checklist would be wiped out.


One particular of the variables that may possibly be element of that consideration is that in the following twenty many years up to 50% of kidney ailment is very likely to be induced by diabetes, primarily type two diabetes, which is linked with becoming obese and with metabolic syndrome. These are conditions frequently linked to diet regime. So does altruism extend to assisting these who have been negligent in assisting themselves?


Gibbs is dismissive of such ethical issues. “You could also talk about surgical treatment with smokers and liver transplants on alcoholics. And you could extend that to must we do surgical treatment on these who crash their vehicles when driving above the velocity limit? Consuming a good deal might be increasingly socially unacceptable, but it is not unlawful.”


In the long run there is no easy or, without a doubt, complex moral formula that results in kidney donation. Whilst some donors speak of it in terms of a rational selection or their consciences, other folks look to locate the determination nearer the kidney, as a kind of gut feeling.


Sanjiv Gohil, for illustration, had never donated blood, nor was he a seasoned charity employee. A partner in an architectural company in London, he wasn’t hunting to aid anyone or make a statement. Then a single day he happened to see a doctor getting interviewed on Television about altruistic kidney donation. Separated from his wife, and with two teenage young children, he skilled what he calls “an epiphany”.


As an alternative of going on a summer season holiday, he went into hospital and had a kidney eliminated. He has seen the despair and desperation on a renal ward, but he also talks of how the operation empowered not just the recipient but him, the donor. “I feel more healthy and far more alive than I did before. And I’ve identified that given that I donated, I’m much more tolerant of life. I think people are naturally excellent, and often we really do not know how to reveal that. You just get caught up in daily life.”


Gohil says that offering his kidney gave him a more accepting viewpoint on the globe. “That’s been the lasting legacy,” he says with a calm smile. “So there are rewards.”


He doesn’t know who received his kidney, and he doesn’t care, but Clare Bolitho does know. When 48-year-outdated Marion Pattinson left hospital three years ago, she was asked if she would like to contact the man or woman whose kidney she had just received. “I stated: ‘I would love to,’” she recalls.


Pattinson had to correspond via the hospital’s kidney co-ordinator, to make certain she didn’t mention names or the hospital, so that her identity was protected. But the two ladies stayed in touch and determined they needed to meet. And on the anniversary of the operation, Bolitho visited Pattinson at her residence, the place Pattinson’s daughter had produced a cake with farm animals in honour of Bolitho’s job as a vet.


Pattinson finds it tough to put into words the depth of her gratitude, but it says anything that the lengthy-phrase diabetes sufferer, who also requirements a pancreas transplant, is partially sighted and not too long ago had a toe amputated, describes herself as “so lucky”.


On dialysis, she says, she felt nearly permanently unwell, tired and in want of sleep. Since the transplant she says she’s “always on the go” and filled with energy. A keen gardener, she no longer has to sit down and rest all the time. “I’m just so grateful,” she says of her new lease of lively life.


She continues to keep in touch with Bolitho, and constantly calls her if she has to go to hospital for a verify-up, just to allow her know how she’s performing. She even sent her a photo of her toe before it was amputated. “Our relationship…” she says, searching for the proper words to describe the specific connection formed by a kidney, “well, it’s like currently being sisters, really.”



Would you give your kidney to a total stranger? | Andrew Anthony