Congrats Gordon! Wow, it is finally over. What a long wait...13 years!!! You are one patient dude!
I have always said that Gordon Brown deserves his moment at the top....even if its just to justify his intellect. It is quite clear that he is full of convictions and determination. Not sure if I can trust him fully. We shall see. He just can't wash his hands off the dirt from the Blair years. The Iraq war for example..........I firmly believe he has blood on his hands too. Can't exactly remember who said this...might have been Winston Churchill...that "we only need a few good men to do nothing, for evil to triumph"...or something like that. Therefore, he cannot excuse himself by saying that the Iraq war has nothing to do with him, and to claim that he was an innocent bystander. In fact, he was no such thing. During the last election, I remember that during a press conference, when he was asked if he supported Tony Blair in the Iraq war, he replied immediately with such a gusto affirmation that one could even see the surprise on Tony's face.
His speech was change this, change that ....NHS, housing, care for the elderly...change, change, change...Oh man! I am already suffering from change fatigue. Why does it feel like my pocket is going to suffer a severe haemorrhage??!! Expensive Britain is going to be Unaffordable Britain. Come back Tony....all is forgiven!
Thursday 28 June 2007
Wednesday 27 June 2007
What happened to the children?
I was listening to the radio today. The DJ was interviewing the Chief of a Fire Service regarding the flood that hit Britain yesterday. They were discussing about the emergency services and how they triage who to help first. The Chief's answer was, " The elderly first, then the disable and after that the children..........". Huh? What happened to women and children first, and everybody else to follow? Are the kids no longer the top priority for the society anymore? Is this new approach a new symptom of the disease of political correctness? The CP is back in the wondering business again....
Tuesday 26 June 2007
Profit over Health
Pigs to humans: alert over new MRSA strain
· Half of all Dutch farmers now carry superbug
· Urgent call to screen UK lifestock and test imports
Ian Sample Science correspondent
Monday June 25, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigners today call for urgent tests on the UK's farm animals after the emergence of a new strain of MRSA which has spread rapidly among farmers in Europe, causing an array of serious infections.
The drug-resistant bug is thought to have arisen in pigs fed antibiotics to protect them against farm-borne diseases and boost their growth. The emergence of the new strain backs up fears voiced by some experts that the heavy use of antibiotics in farm animals could lead to a drug-resistant bug capable of infecting humans.
The strain of staphylococcus aureus, known as ST398, is resistant to commonly used antibiotics and has caused skin infections and rare heart and bone infections in patients in the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany.
A report published today by the organic farming organisation, the Soil Association, says the superbug represents a new threat to human health. It urged the government to introduce immediate screening of national livestock and strict testing of imported meat products and animals from affected regions, to prevent the superbug spreading to Britain. The report reveals the swift spread of the new MRSA strain, which tested positive in 39% of pigs at nine abattoirs in the Netherlands last year. A further survey identified the strain in 13% of Dutch calves.
Medical officials found that 50% of Dutch farmers were carriers of the strain, a prevalence 1,500 times higher than the rest of the population. In one pig farming region 80% of all MRSA cases are now caused by the farm animal strain. A survey by the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority last year found traces of the bug in 20% of pork meat, 21% of chicken meat and 3% of beef.
"It's going to get to the UK sooner or later, but the government is doing nothing to look for it," said Richard Young, a co-author of the report. "We should be doing routine surveillance on imported meat and imported live chicks."
The document also recommends a screening programme for farmers coming from European countries before they work with live animals.
"It's a new strain we should be looking for here," said Mark Enright, an expert in MRSA at Imperial College, London. "The excessive use of antibiotics is always a bad idea. If you do that for long enough, inevitably one of the strains that emerges will be good at causing disease in humans."
The new strain was first detected two years ago in the Netherlands.
A Defra spokesman said the government had commissioned research into the spread of the infection among animals. "There is no consensus on whether animals became infected from other animals or humans, therefore the identification of MRSA in animals cannot be conclusively linked to the use of antibiotics in animals."
***********************************************************************************
This is another example where greed triumphs. Unfortunately, when we go against nature, there is always a penalty to pay. MRSA superbug is difficult to treat, and may cause loss of human life. It is grim news that 50% of Dutch farmers now carries this drug. This means that if any of them have an operation e.g.a hip replacement, the chances of the prothetic hip infection is very high and it can be very difficult to trat it if it happens. What is more worrying for me is that these meat are being consumed by human. Isn't it time that we go all ORGANIC?
· Half of all Dutch farmers now carry superbug
· Urgent call to screen UK lifestock and test imports
Ian Sample Science correspondent
Monday June 25, 2007
The Guardian
Campaigners today call for urgent tests on the UK's farm animals after the emergence of a new strain of MRSA which has spread rapidly among farmers in Europe, causing an array of serious infections.
The drug-resistant bug is thought to have arisen in pigs fed antibiotics to protect them against farm-borne diseases and boost their growth. The emergence of the new strain backs up fears voiced by some experts that the heavy use of antibiotics in farm animals could lead to a drug-resistant bug capable of infecting humans.
The strain of staphylococcus aureus, known as ST398, is resistant to commonly used antibiotics and has caused skin infections and rare heart and bone infections in patients in the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany.
A report published today by the organic farming organisation, the Soil Association, says the superbug represents a new threat to human health. It urged the government to introduce immediate screening of national livestock and strict testing of imported meat products and animals from affected regions, to prevent the superbug spreading to Britain. The report reveals the swift spread of the new MRSA strain, which tested positive in 39% of pigs at nine abattoirs in the Netherlands last year. A further survey identified the strain in 13% of Dutch calves.
Medical officials found that 50% of Dutch farmers were carriers of the strain, a prevalence 1,500 times higher than the rest of the population. In one pig farming region 80% of all MRSA cases are now caused by the farm animal strain. A survey by the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority last year found traces of the bug in 20% of pork meat, 21% of chicken meat and 3% of beef.
"It's going to get to the UK sooner or later, but the government is doing nothing to look for it," said Richard Young, a co-author of the report. "We should be doing routine surveillance on imported meat and imported live chicks."
The document also recommends a screening programme for farmers coming from European countries before they work with live animals.
"It's a new strain we should be looking for here," said Mark Enright, an expert in MRSA at Imperial College, London. "The excessive use of antibiotics is always a bad idea. If you do that for long enough, inevitably one of the strains that emerges will be good at causing disease in humans."
The new strain was first detected two years ago in the Netherlands.
A Defra spokesman said the government had commissioned research into the spread of the infection among animals. "There is no consensus on whether animals became infected from other animals or humans, therefore the identification of MRSA in animals cannot be conclusively linked to the use of antibiotics in animals."
***********************************************************************************
This is another example where greed triumphs. Unfortunately, when we go against nature, there is always a penalty to pay. MRSA superbug is difficult to treat, and may cause loss of human life. It is grim news that 50% of Dutch farmers now carries this drug. This means that if any of them have an operation e.g.a hip replacement, the chances of the prothetic hip infection is very high and it can be very difficult to trat it if it happens. What is more worrying for me is that these meat are being consumed by human. Isn't it time that we go all ORGANIC?
Wednesday 13 June 2007
Do unto them........the bastards!!
Paedophiles face 'chemical castration'
ITN - Wednesday, June 13 02:18 pm
Some sex offenders are to be chemically castrated as part of an overhaul of how paedophiles are handled.
(Advertisement)
Volunteers will be given drugs to suppress their libido under the pilot scheme which will also see compulsory lie detector tests introduced for sex offenders.
Home Secretary John Reid has announced proposals later to allow parents and guardians limited access to information about convicted paedophiles.
For the first time they will be given the right to ask whether a person who has contact with their child is a sex offender. The plans, first announced in April, will mainly apply if the individual is able to spend time alone with a youngster.
There will also be other limited circumstances when disclosures can be made. The system would build on laws which already allow police to approach and warn a woman who has begun a relationship with a known paedophile.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons the new laws are "a sensible, worthwhile step forward".
The NSPCC welcomed the development, saying "open access" could force convicted paedophiles underground and place youngsters at greater risk of assault.
But the children's charity warned that the new disclosure plans could over-stretch limited resources.
Director and chief executive Dame Mary Marsh said: "We fear the police and other agencies may not have enough officers and funding to make fully considered decisions on information sharing while keeping a grip on known offenders."
The package of measures is expected to put an end to calls for a British version of Megan's Law.
The US legislation commemorates seven-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped, strangled and her body stuffed in a plastic toy chest by neighbour Jesse Timmendequas in the New Jersey suburb of Hamilton Township in 1994.
The murder of eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah Payne by paedophile Roy Whiting in July 2000 sparked a nationwide campaign for similar legislation to be introduced in Britain, dubbed "Sarah's Law".
The system now being proposed would have arguably had no effect on the Sarah Payne case, as she was grabbed by a stranger, and is a far cry from the "Sarah's Law" originally envisaged by campaigners.
************************************************************************************
The news about a letter sent by a mystery person regarding the whereabouts of the "body" of Madeleine McCann sends a chill down my spine. I do not even dare to contemplate the fate of the poor child, as yet unknown. It is too painful to do so. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish of what the parents are going through. All these have given me an irrational fear regarding the safety of my own child. You see, Maddy is only exactly one week older than my own little girl. Although we do not know who had kidnapped her, a possibility remains that it might be the work of a paedophile. Or worse a paedophile ring. When I think about this, a surge of anger would well up inside me, like this very moment!!
So, should we chemically castrate these paedophile bastards? Damn right, we should!! What is there to think? If I have my own way, I would have them surgically castrated. The effect is permanent, and they would be punished forever. Even better, I had previously advocated a death sentence for these low life, especially if the child had been murdered. However, just as I objected to the taking of life as in the case of an abortion (see previous post), I think now perhaps I am beginning to move away from the hard principle of the death penalty. This change of philosophy was triggered during my attendance at a forum at the American Society of Anesthesiologists last year. The debate was about whether a physician should assist in carrying out the death sentence. A very hot topic in the US currently. I am afraid the case put forward by those against it had swayed my thinking.
But castration? Yeah, I would offer my services free of charge.
ITN - Wednesday, June 13 02:18 pm
Some sex offenders are to be chemically castrated as part of an overhaul of how paedophiles are handled.
(Advertisement)
Volunteers will be given drugs to suppress their libido under the pilot scheme which will also see compulsory lie detector tests introduced for sex offenders.
Home Secretary John Reid has announced proposals later to allow parents and guardians limited access to information about convicted paedophiles.
For the first time they will be given the right to ask whether a person who has contact with their child is a sex offender. The plans, first announced in April, will mainly apply if the individual is able to spend time alone with a youngster.
There will also be other limited circumstances when disclosures can be made. The system would build on laws which already allow police to approach and warn a woman who has begun a relationship with a known paedophile.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons the new laws are "a sensible, worthwhile step forward".
The NSPCC welcomed the development, saying "open access" could force convicted paedophiles underground and place youngsters at greater risk of assault.
But the children's charity warned that the new disclosure plans could over-stretch limited resources.
Director and chief executive Dame Mary Marsh said: "We fear the police and other agencies may not have enough officers and funding to make fully considered decisions on information sharing while keeping a grip on known offenders."
The package of measures is expected to put an end to calls for a British version of Megan's Law.
The US legislation commemorates seven-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped, strangled and her body stuffed in a plastic toy chest by neighbour Jesse Timmendequas in the New Jersey suburb of Hamilton Township in 1994.
The murder of eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah Payne by paedophile Roy Whiting in July 2000 sparked a nationwide campaign for similar legislation to be introduced in Britain, dubbed "Sarah's Law".
The system now being proposed would have arguably had no effect on the Sarah Payne case, as she was grabbed by a stranger, and is a far cry from the "Sarah's Law" originally envisaged by campaigners.
************************************************************************************
The news about a letter sent by a mystery person regarding the whereabouts of the "body" of Madeleine McCann sends a chill down my spine. I do not even dare to contemplate the fate of the poor child, as yet unknown. It is too painful to do so. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish of what the parents are going through. All these have given me an irrational fear regarding the safety of my own child. You see, Maddy is only exactly one week older than my own little girl. Although we do not know who had kidnapped her, a possibility remains that it might be the work of a paedophile. Or worse a paedophile ring. When I think about this, a surge of anger would well up inside me, like this very moment!!
So, should we chemically castrate these paedophile bastards? Damn right, we should!! What is there to think? If I have my own way, I would have them surgically castrated. The effect is permanent, and they would be punished forever. Even better, I had previously advocated a death sentence for these low life, especially if the child had been murdered. However, just as I objected to the taking of life as in the case of an abortion (see previous post), I think now perhaps I am beginning to move away from the hard principle of the death penalty. This change of philosophy was triggered during my attendance at a forum at the American Society of Anesthesiologists last year. The debate was about whether a physician should assist in carrying out the death sentence. A very hot topic in the US currently. I am afraid the case put forward by those against it had swayed my thinking.
But castration? Yeah, I would offer my services free of charge.
Monday 4 June 2007
Abortion : Is it Murder??
US Supreme Court approves ban on "partial birth abortion"
Janice Hopkins Tanne
New York
The nine member US Supreme Court ruled five to four last week to ban the "partial birth abortion" procedure in the United States. The court upheld a federal law banning the procedure that was passed by Congress in 2003. The law had been challenged in the courts for lacking an exception to protect women's health, not just their lives.
Many commentators called the decision the most important ruling on abortion in 30 years.
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, two Democrats, Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, introduced bills in the Senate and House of Representatives that would prevent government from interfering with a woman's right to bear a child or end a pregnancy. Nadler said, "We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose."
This week the New England Journal of Medicine joined the debate. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's editor in chief, said in an early release editorial that the Supreme Court "was practising medicine without a licence."
In another article, Michael Greene, director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital, wrote that US doctors lacked confidence in the judicial system and might avoid carrying out surgical abortions in the second trimester even when the mother's life is in danger. The court's decision was part of government restrictions on access to contraception and for coping with dangerous or unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion will be an important topic in next year's presidential election. Potential Democratic candidates criticised the court's decision and potential Republican candidates approved it, including former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, despite the fact that he has said he supports abortion rights.
Seven years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a state law that banned "partial birth abortion" because it did not have an exception to protect women's health (BMJ 2004:328:1398, doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7453.1398-d), and it has several times struck down abortion laws that did not have a health exception. The federal law states that the procedure is never medically necessary and the Supreme Court upheld the federal law despite its previous decisions requiring a protection for women's health.
The law defines a partial birth abortion as a procedure in which the doctor "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." The number of such abortions carried out each year in the US is thought to be between 2200 and 5000. They are most often performed in the second trimester.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that the procedure might be the safest but its view had been disregarded. Dr Douglas Laube, president of the college, said that the decision "leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence."
The college, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Abortion Federation, and many other organisations criticised the court's decision. They said it was a step toward prohibiting abortion. Pro-life, anti-abortion groups applauded the decision.
The New York Times made it lead story (www.nytimes.com, 19 Apr, "In reversal of course, justices, 5-4, back ban on abortion method") and in its lead editorial (p A26) said the decision "severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth." Several commentators said that the court had changed from having concern for a woman's health to having concern about the fetus. They also noted a paternalistic tone in the court's ruling.
The current court is more conservative because of George Bush's appointment of Samuel Alito as an associate justice, replacing the more liberal Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been the "swing vote" in some 5-4 decisions on abortion rights.
Doctors usually refer to the procedure of partial birth abortion as intact dilatation and extraction. The alternative procedure, which is not prohibited, is to dismember the fetus within the uterus and extract it. Partial birth abortion or intact dilatation and evacuation is allowed when the fetus is dead. Killing the fetus by injection and inducing labour is not often used in the US and is thought to be less safe.
Commenting on the law as it now stands after the Supreme Court decision, David Grimes, former head of abortion surveillance for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the BMJ, "The law is crudely crafted, difficult to interpret, and hopelessly vague. It doesn't mention gestational age." It also refers to intention rather than what may happen during a procedure. Doctors who violate the law may be jailed for up to two years; women will not be punished.
Dr Grimes said that he had personally used the procedure to save a woman's life. He feared the ruling would lead to increased restrictions on abortion at a state by state level. State legislators have already begun to propose local laws.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the court, said in the dissenting opinion that the ruling does not prevent a single abortion. It merely outlaws a procedure. Antiabortion activists say that they will seek restrictions on other procedures for abortion and also seek to impose other restrictions, such as counselling before abortion, ultrasound imaging, and longer waiting times.
About 1.3 million abortions are carried out in the US each year, almost 90% in the first trimester by vacuum aspiration. The number of partial birth abortions is unclear because of problems with definitions and the collection of statistics. Estimates are less than 1%, perhaps as low as 0.2%.
The full ruling is available at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf.
***********************************************************************************
So is abortion murder? I believe that it most certainly is. Whether the fetus is in-utero or outside is purely semantics. It is still an act whereby a human life is terminated. That fact cannot be disputed and therefore it makes it an unlawful act. The description of the partial birth abortion should wake up those who tries to justify the act of abortion and deceive their own conscience. Whatever the circumstances of the pregnancy, it should not end with the death penalty of the fetus. What about the sanctity of human life? Society should again examine its own conscience.
Janice Hopkins Tanne
New York
The nine member US Supreme Court ruled five to four last week to ban the "partial birth abortion" procedure in the United States. The court upheld a federal law banning the procedure that was passed by Congress in 2003. The law had been challenged in the courts for lacking an exception to protect women's health, not just their lives.
Many commentators called the decision the most important ruling on abortion in 30 years.
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, two Democrats, Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, introduced bills in the Senate and House of Representatives that would prevent government from interfering with a woman's right to bear a child or end a pregnancy. Nadler said, "We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose."
This week the New England Journal of Medicine joined the debate. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's editor in chief, said in an early release editorial that the Supreme Court "was practising medicine without a licence."
In another article, Michael Greene, director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital, wrote that US doctors lacked confidence in the judicial system and might avoid carrying out surgical abortions in the second trimester even when the mother's life is in danger. The court's decision was part of government restrictions on access to contraception and for coping with dangerous or unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion will be an important topic in next year's presidential election. Potential Democratic candidates criticised the court's decision and potential Republican candidates approved it, including former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, despite the fact that he has said he supports abortion rights.
Seven years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a state law that banned "partial birth abortion" because it did not have an exception to protect women's health (BMJ 2004:328:1398, doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7453.1398-d), and it has several times struck down abortion laws that did not have a health exception. The federal law states that the procedure is never medically necessary and the Supreme Court upheld the federal law despite its previous decisions requiring a protection for women's health.
The law defines a partial birth abortion as a procedure in which the doctor "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." The number of such abortions carried out each year in the US is thought to be between 2200 and 5000. They are most often performed in the second trimester.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that the procedure might be the safest but its view had been disregarded. Dr Douglas Laube, president of the college, said that the decision "leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence."
The college, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Abortion Federation, and many other organisations criticised the court's decision. They said it was a step toward prohibiting abortion. Pro-life, anti-abortion groups applauded the decision.
The New York Times made it lead story (www.nytimes.com, 19 Apr, "In reversal of course, justices, 5-4, back ban on abortion method") and in its lead editorial (p A26) said the decision "severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth." Several commentators said that the court had changed from having concern for a woman's health to having concern about the fetus. They also noted a paternalistic tone in the court's ruling.
The current court is more conservative because of George Bush's appointment of Samuel Alito as an associate justice, replacing the more liberal Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been the "swing vote" in some 5-4 decisions on abortion rights.
Doctors usually refer to the procedure of partial birth abortion as intact dilatation and extraction. The alternative procedure, which is not prohibited, is to dismember the fetus within the uterus and extract it. Partial birth abortion or intact dilatation and evacuation is allowed when the fetus is dead. Killing the fetus by injection and inducing labour is not often used in the US and is thought to be less safe.
Commenting on the law as it now stands after the Supreme Court decision, David Grimes, former head of abortion surveillance for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the BMJ, "The law is crudely crafted, difficult to interpret, and hopelessly vague. It doesn't mention gestational age." It also refers to intention rather than what may happen during a procedure. Doctors who violate the law may be jailed for up to two years; women will not be punished.
Dr Grimes said that he had personally used the procedure to save a woman's life. He feared the ruling would lead to increased restrictions on abortion at a state by state level. State legislators have already begun to propose local laws.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the court, said in the dissenting opinion that the ruling does not prevent a single abortion. It merely outlaws a procedure. Antiabortion activists say that they will seek restrictions on other procedures for abortion and also seek to impose other restrictions, such as counselling before abortion, ultrasound imaging, and longer waiting times.
About 1.3 million abortions are carried out in the US each year, almost 90% in the first trimester by vacuum aspiration. The number of partial birth abortions is unclear because of problems with definitions and the collection of statistics. Estimates are less than 1%, perhaps as low as 0.2%.
The full ruling is available at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf.
***********************************************************************************
So is abortion murder? I believe that it most certainly is. Whether the fetus is in-utero or outside is purely semantics. It is still an act whereby a human life is terminated. That fact cannot be disputed and therefore it makes it an unlawful act. The description of the partial birth abortion should wake up those who tries to justify the act of abortion and deceive their own conscience. Whatever the circumstances of the pregnancy, it should not end with the death penalty of the fetus. What about the sanctity of human life? Society should again examine its own conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
