Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Monday, 30 January 2012
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Definitions of the day- A-C
Hi I have decided that it would be a fun idea to extend my medical knowledge somewhat by picking a term from my medical dictionary for specific letters and writing about them. Obviously, it would be of no use if I already knew the word so I am attempting to find some that I haven't even heard of before!
Aminoglycoside drugs- A type of antibiotics, injected, generally reserved for treatment of serious conditions. This is because they may damage the inner ear or kidneys. Examples are gentamicin and streptomycin.
Bradycardia- Abnormally slow heart rate, sometimes as a result of regular vigorous exercise but in other cases indicates an underlying problem such as hypothyroidism. May be as a result of taking beta-blockers. Sudden bradycardia may cause a drop in blood pressure, therefore fainting.
Chigoe- An small, itchy, painful swelling caused by a sand flea from Africa and Tropical America. It penetrates the skin and lays eggs. The wound should be treated with an antiseptic after the removal of the fleas with a sterile needle.
Aminoglycoside drugs- A type of antibiotics, injected, generally reserved for treatment of serious conditions. This is because they may damage the inner ear or kidneys. Examples are gentamicin and streptomycin.
Bradycardia- Abnormally slow heart rate, sometimes as a result of regular vigorous exercise but in other cases indicates an underlying problem such as hypothyroidism. May be as a result of taking beta-blockers. Sudden bradycardia may cause a drop in blood pressure, therefore fainting.
Chigoe- An small, itchy, painful swelling caused by a sand flea from Africa and Tropical America. It penetrates the skin and lays eggs. The wound should be treated with an antiseptic after the removal of the fleas with a sterile needle.
Friday, 20 January 2012
What does rotting flesh smell like?
I am fortunate enough to not have ever been in a situation where there was a smell of rotting flesh but every time I hear it mentioned I wonder what it's like. It may seem weird, I know, but I am simply curious. What is it that makes rotting flesh smell so 'bad'? Whilst researching this I found out about the whole process of human decomposition, which is truly a very interesting process.
The process of decomposition begins with autolysis, cells in the body are poisoned by the carbon dioxide in the blood, the decrease in pH and the accumulation of wastes. Also enzymes in cells start to digest the cells themselves, causing ruptures and releasing nutrient rich fluids. After enough fluids are available. The stage of putrefaction, which produces the infamous odour, begins.
Microorganisms, destroy the soft tissues of the body and these are broken down into gases, liquids and simpler molecules. When these are excreted by the bacteria, they include amines like putrescine and cadaverine, which are responsible for the smell. These gases diffuse through the body and show as an obvious bloating of the torso and then limbs. These bacteria consume all availible proteins, before the next stage begins, skeletonisation.
The process of decomposition begins with autolysis, cells in the body are poisoned by the carbon dioxide in the blood, the decrease in pH and the accumulation of wastes. Also enzymes in cells start to digest the cells themselves, causing ruptures and releasing nutrient rich fluids. After enough fluids are available. The stage of putrefaction, which produces the infamous odour, begins.
Microorganisms, destroy the soft tissues of the body and these are broken down into gases, liquids and simpler molecules. When these are excreted by the bacteria, they include amines like putrescine and cadaverine, which are responsible for the smell. These gases diffuse through the body and show as an obvious bloating of the torso and then limbs. These bacteria consume all availible proteins, before the next stage begins, skeletonisation.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Senescence
Whilst searching for topics for my biology case study I stumbled across research into the theories surrounding biological aging; Senescence. I find this topic really interesting as it
But, I don't think that research into senescence should be used for the promotion of 'biological immortality', but perhaps for prevention of specific diseases. In any case, biological mortality would not ever promise absolute mortality as one must always have risks in life.
But, I don't think that research into senescence should be used for the promotion of 'biological immortality', but perhaps for prevention of specific diseases. In any case, biological mortality would not ever promise absolute mortality as one must always have risks in life.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
I've just come back from the care home where i volunteer weekly and there is one lady with severe alzheimer's disease, Janet. It is difficult to see Janet so distressed, calling out for people who aren't there. When this first happened I expected the care staff to rush and comfort her. Instead they consistently ignore her, one can't even begin to imagine the desperate loneliness felt by this woman. But I don't blame the carers, I simply think they don't know what to do when she has an 'episode', this is unfair for them as well as Janet. Perhaps people working with Alzheimer's patients should have regular training to learn how to care compassionately and appropriately for the individual. I do, however, acknowledge, that there isn't a lot of money in care homes and the money saving is usually held very highly, meaning that care workers are underpaid. They probably wouldn't want to shell out money for what they might seem as supplementary.
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Should the government pay for the removal of PIP breast implants?
Recently it was discovered that breast implants which about 40000 British women have had fitted contained industrial grade silicon gel, which can be more irritative. The french government have recently paid for the removal of any french women who would like their implants removed after finding an increased rupture rate of 5%. The British Government review has found no increased rupture rate to normal (1%) and together with the fact that the removal operation may itself come with a risk, recommends for British women not to have these, or any other breast implants removed.
There must be a reason for the discrepancies in the rupture rates, according to the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons it is because of lack of knowledge or rupture, changing clinicians or moving to NHS care when problems arise. But could that really account for 4% less rupture rates? It doesn't seem likely to me, perhaps the two countries were investigating the issues differently, it's probable that there has been some manipulation of figures on the side of the plastic surgery companies to seem as if the implants weren't as dangerous so as to not have to pay for removal.The health secretary has encouraged private companies to fulfill their responsibilities to care for and support the patients and there is going to be a review into this rupture rate data.
However, all this just raises the question, even if they were a risk to health, should the government foot the bill? Aside from the 3000 patients who recieved the implants for reconstruction after cancer treatment, the breast implants were paid for by the customer. Surely by doing so, one is accepting the relative risk of rupture and complications. But then again, if the rupture rates for the PIP breast implants are far higher than the norm it could be argued that they did not buy into such a high risk.
Would it be fair for funding to be taken away from other non-self inflicted problem treatment to pay for the removal of primarily cosmetic problems? Sadly the majority of the cases the NHS has to deal with is self-inflicted, If the NHS refused to pay for treatment of cases caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse, the general public would not be getting the service which they are entitled to as citizens of this country. However even if , it is still an issue that the NHS is undergoing widespread funding cuts and the
A possible solution to this problem would be to introduce either compulsory insurance on plastic surgery to cover the cost of any problems which may occur. Or similarly to cigarettes, put a high taxation rate to cover the extra costs of complications to surgery in the NHS. I'm not sure which would seem a more attractive option for the recipients of the surgery, perhaps the taxation rate would be less as it would not have profit margins added by the private sector. However, the general public may not understand that the extra taxation rate is for their own benefit and may feel as if they are being targeted or 'robbed' by the government.
Even just one health scandal can lead to a series of problems and issues.
Thanks for reading!
There must be a reason for the discrepancies in the rupture rates, according to the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons it is because of lack of knowledge or rupture, changing clinicians or moving to NHS care when problems arise. But could that really account for 4% less rupture rates? It doesn't seem likely to me, perhaps the two countries were investigating the issues differently, it's probable that there has been some manipulation of figures on the side of the plastic surgery companies to seem as if the implants weren't as dangerous so as to not have to pay for removal.The health secretary has encouraged private companies to fulfill their responsibilities to care for and support the patients and there is going to be a review into this rupture rate data.
However, all this just raises the question, even if they were a risk to health, should the government foot the bill? Aside from the 3000 patients who recieved the implants for reconstruction after cancer treatment, the breast implants were paid for by the customer. Surely by doing so, one is accepting the relative risk of rupture and complications. But then again, if the rupture rates for the PIP breast implants are far higher than the norm it could be argued that they did not buy into such a high risk.
Would it be fair for funding to be taken away from other non-self inflicted problem treatment to pay for the removal of primarily cosmetic problems? Sadly the majority of the cases the NHS has to deal with is self-inflicted, If the NHS refused to pay for treatment of cases caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse, the general public would not be getting the service which they are entitled to as citizens of this country. However even if , it is still an issue that the NHS is undergoing widespread funding cuts and the
A possible solution to this problem would be to introduce either compulsory insurance on plastic surgery to cover the cost of any problems which may occur. Or similarly to cigarettes, put a high taxation rate to cover the extra costs of complications to surgery in the NHS. I'm not sure which would seem a more attractive option for the recipients of the surgery, perhaps the taxation rate would be less as it would not have profit margins added by the private sector. However, the general public may not understand that the extra taxation rate is for their own benefit and may feel as if they are being targeted or 'robbed' by the government.
Even just one health scandal can lead to a series of problems and issues.
Thanks for reading!
Sunday, 1 January 2012
New year, New blog!
I wanted my first post to be about something i am really interested in, the topic of organ donation.
It's not debatable that organ donation is essential for the maintenance of the health in this nation but the methods of persuading the general public to sign on to the register need to be vastly improved in order to reduce the 10000 strong waiting list and to put a stop to the unbelievable 1000 per year death rate of these people. With money becoming a more and more greater part of the way the NHS runs, organ donation is the financially attractive solution to a lot of problems, 1 kidney transplant saves the NHS on average £214k.
That's not to say nothing has been done about it already, there has been many public campaigns targetting the issue through many different mediums http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7D4QzAVGo&feature=player_embedded
I wanted my first post to be about something i am really interested in, the topic of organ donation.
It's not debatable that organ donation is essential for the maintenance of the health in this nation but the methods of persuading the general public to sign on to the register need to be vastly improved in order to reduce the 10000 strong waiting list and to put a stop to the unbelievable 1000 per year death rate of these people. With money becoming a more and more greater part of the way the NHS runs, organ donation is the financially attractive solution to a lot of problems, 1 kidney transplant saves the NHS on average £214k.
That's not to say nothing has been done about it already, there has been many public campaigns targetting the issue through many different mediums http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7D4QzAVGo&feature=player_embedded
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)