Ler é manter com vida seus neurônios: o Brasil nesta realidade pouco valorizada

__

Há no Brasil 77 milhões de não-leitores, dos quais 21 milhões são analfabetos. E se a confirmação do Instituto Pró-livro parece alarmante, a situação se agrava ao destacar o perfil dos leitores (cerca de 90 milhões de pessoas), que de acordo com o levantamento, leem em média 1,3 livro por ano.

Tendo como referência dados da pesquisa Retratos da Leitura no Brasil, feita com 5.012 pessoas de 311 municípios do país no período de 2007 e 2008, o relatório mostra a escola como uma das principais motivações à leitura e destaca: incluídas obras didáticas e pedagógicas, o número de livros lidos por ano sobe para 4,7.

Ainda assim, os pais e o ambiente familiar são apontados pela pesquisa como as maiores influências para a formação do hábito da leitura, o que explica o fato de que 63% dos não leitores informaram nunca terem visto os pais lendo.

Ao sugerir que o hábito de ler é consolidado na escola, o relatório divulga que quanto maior o nível de escolaridade, maior o tempo dedicado à leitura. Entre os entrevistados com ensino superior, há apenas 2% de não leitores e 20% disseram que dedicam entre quatro e dez horas por semana aos livros. Este índice cai para 12% entre estudantes do ensino médio.

Mas para o professor de Literatura Dilvanio Albuquerque o desinteresse do brasileiro pelos livros não pode ser atribuído apenas à família e à escola. “O problema é mais amplo. Não podemos falar que a culpa é da instituição, seja ela familiar ou escolar, porque, na verdade, o problema é cultural”.

Para o professor, até entre os universitários, o hábito da leitura não é comum, inclusive nos cursos em que o contato com a escrita é fundamental. “Normalmente a universidade não oferece um bom acervo. Moramos em um país em que os livros são caros e de difícil acesso”, afirmou.

“O livro é pouco presente no imaginário do brasileiro”, explicou o diretor do Livro, Leitura e Literatura do Ministério da Cultura, Fabiano dos Santos.

Nos Estados Unidos, por exemplo, a população lê, em média, 11 livros por ano. Já os franceses leem sete livros por ano, enquanto na Colômbia, a média é de 2,4 livros por ano. Os dados, de 2005, são da Câmara Brasileira do Livro (CBL) e do Sindicato Nacional dos Editores de Livros (Snel), que integram o Instituto Pró-Livro.

Detalhes dos hábitos do brasileiro relacionados ao livro, revelados na pesquisa, atestam esta afirmação. Entre os leitores, 41% disseram que gostam muito de ler no tempo livre, enquanto 13% admitiram que não gostam. Também entre os 95 milhões de leitores brasileiros, 75% disseram que sentem prazer ao ler um livro, mas 22% sustentaram que leem apenas por obrigação.

Com as estatísticas nas mãos, Fabiano explica que há dois caminhos a percorrer para fazer do Brasil um país de leitores: ampliar o acesso ao livro e investir na formação de leitores.

“É em casa e na escola, que os leitores são formados. Depois dos pais, os professores são os maiores incentivadores, mas poucos têm a experiência da leitura. E, neste caso, fazer do aluno um leitor é uma mágica”, destacou o diretor.

O levantamento considerou como não-leitores aqueles que declararam não ter lido nenhum livro nos últimos três meses, ainda que tenha lido ocasionalmente ou em outros meses do ano e destacou os autores mais lidos pelos entrevistados: Monteiro Lobato, Paulo Coelho, Jorge Amado e Machado de Assis.

leitura

Roberto Caldas é eleito para Corte de Interamericana de Direitos Humanos

__

06/06/2012

 

O candidato do Brasil para o cargo de juiz da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, Roberto Caldas, foi proclamado vencedor das eleições para a função, na noite de terça-feira (5/6), durante a 42ª Assembleia Geral da Organização dos Estados Americanos. Caldas recebeu 19 votos numa das disputas mais acirradas de todos os tempos para uma corte internacional, com cinco candidatos para três vagas. As informações são do jornal O Globo.

Os outros escolhidos foram o mexicano Eduardo Ferrer MacGregor (18 votos) e o colombiano Humberto Sierra Porto (15 votos). As juízas que tentavam a reeleição, Margarette Macaulay (Jamaica) e Rhaxy Blondet (República Dominicana) não obtiveram êxito.

A votação secreta teve a participação de 24 países-membros signatários da Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos e elegeu o advogado Roberto Caldas para o período de 2013-2018, com possibilidade de reeleição. Ele poderá manter suas atividades advocatícias, mas não poderá atuar nos casos que envolver o Brasil na Corte.

Caldas foi indicado pela presidente Dilma Rousseff, em fevereiro do ano passado, e durante sua campanha teve apoio do Ministério das Relações Exteriores e da Secretaria de Direitos Humanos da Presidência da República.

Com experiência de 25 anos no ramo de direitos sociais e na defesa de trabalhadores, ele será o único membro da Corte com essa especialização.

 

Caldas será o segundo brasileiro a fazer parte da Corte. Antes dele, o jurista Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade foi o representante do Brasil entre 1995 e 2006, tendo ocupado a presidência por duas vezes (1991-2001 e 2002-2003).

 

A Corte
A Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos tem sede em San José na Costa Rica e é composta por sete juízes, eleitos entre juristas dos países-membros da OEA. A Corte é uma instituição judicial autônoma da Organização e tem como objetivo salvaguardar a aplicação dos princípios da Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos, estabelecida em 1979, e de outros tratados sobre o assunto.

 

Perfil dos eleitos
Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas (Brasil)
Advogado, formado em Direito pela Universidade de Brasília (UnB), foi juiz ad hoc da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos nos processos brasileiros desde 2007: Casos (1) Escher, (2) Garibaldi e (3) Gomes Lund ou Guerrilha do Araguaia (pendente de supervisão de sentença a ocorrer em 2012). É membro da Comissão de Ética Pública da Presidência da República, conselheiro do Conselho de Transparência Pública e Combate à Corrupção – CGU/Presidência da República, membro da Comissão Nacional para Erradicação do Trabalho Escravo (Conatrae), da Secretaria de Direitos Humanos/Presidência da República, coordenador da Coordenação de Combate ao Trabalho Escravo da OAB Nacional e secretário-geral da Comissão Nacional de Defesa da República e da Democracia da OAB Nacional. Especialista em Ética, Direitos Humanos e Sociais, e Direito Constitucional e do Trabalho, advoga com militância intensa perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal e Tribunais Superiores há mais de 25 anos, dentre os quais, defendeu importantes processos que se tornaram precedentes (“leading cases”), como o piso nacional do magistério.

 

Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot (México)
Graduado em Direito pela Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Especialista em Direitos Humanos pelo Institut Internacional des Droits de L´Homme (Estrasburgo – França). Doutor em Direito pela Universidad de Navarra, Espanha (Cum Laude). Foi juizad hoc da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos no Caso Cabrera y Montiel vs. México (2009-2010). Exerceu diversos cargos na Suprema Corte de Justiça do México, entre eles, o de diretor-geral de Relações Internacionais, presidente do Comitê Editorial, presidente do Comitê de Acesso à Informação e secretário executivo jurídico administrativo.

 

Humberto Sierra Porto (Colômbia)
Formou-se em Direito pela Universidad Externado de Colombia. É especialista em Direito Constitucional e Ciências Políticas pelo Centros de Estudios Constitucionales de Madrid (Espanha). Doutor em Direito Constitucional pela Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Professor de Direito Constitucional da Universidad Externado de Colombia. Autor de diversas publicações na área de justiça constitucional e fontes de direito. Foi advogado perante o Conselho de Estado, bem como assessor de assuntos legislativos na Câmara de Representantes. Desde setembro de 2004, é juiz da Corte Constitucional da Colômbia.

__

Tráfico de órgãos é uma realidade comprovada no Brasil e no exterior

A Revista Newsweek de 19 de janeiro corrente, reproduzida após estes comentários, traz mais uma reportagem sobre tráfico de órgãos.

Poucas pessoas sabem destes fatos porque a mídia recusou-se a divulgá-los para não comprometer interesses dos lucros que gravitam em torno do sistema transplantador no Brasil: no ano de 2004, houve a realização de uma CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos que comprovou a existência de tráfico de órgãos dentro de hospitais brasileiros, retirando por completo o rótulo de “lenda urbana” sobre este assunto. Mais: esta CPI, com a qual colaboramos, não constatou apenas a venda de um dos órgãos vitais duplos de pessoas que continuavam vivendo, mas o homicídio de crianças e jovens para a retirada de todos os seus órgãos. No decorrer destes acontecimentos, inclusive, o administrador de um hospital em Minas Gerais onde havia caso de tráfico conseguiu praticar “suicídio” com dois tiros na cabeça. A versão do suicídio com dois tiros foi aceita pelas autoridades e a razão pela qual ele morreu não foi investigada.

Foi constatado que o Brasil está entre os cinco países onde há maior incidência do tráfico de órgãos, junto com países como China e India.

Estes dados já eram denunciados pela antropóloga Nancy Scheper-Hughes da ONG http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/biotech/organswatch/

Neste espaço iremos disponibilizar todas as atas desta CPI. Na coluna à direita desta página pode ser consultada a categoria de links em “Tráfico de Órgãos”.

A Resolução 1752/2004 do CFM [1], quando “autorizou” os médicos a retirarem os órgãos dos anencéfalos para transplantes, procurou “oficializar” esta prática em um universo de pessoas (anencéfalas) altamente vulneráveis.

Esta Resolução do CFM tem um conteúdo homicida, pois causar a morte do anencéfalo encontra tipificação no artigo 121 do Código Penal.

Antes da reportagem da Revista Newsweek de 19 de jan. colocamos links relacionados com este assunto [2].

[1] https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/anencefalia-morte-encefalica-e-o-conselho-federal-de-medicina/

[2]https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

[2] http://www.nazioneindiana.com/2008/12/19/il-mercato-degli-organi-il-buco-nero-della-globalizzazione/

[2] https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/a-dura-realidade-do-trafico-de-orgaos/

[2] https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/morte-encefalica-o-teste-da-apneia-somente-e-feito-se-houver-a-intencao-de-matar-o-paciente/

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

Link para esta página e para a reportagem da Revista Newsweek:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/trafico-de-orgaos-e-uma-realidade-comprovada-no-brasil/

“The World Health Organization estimates that one fifth of the 70,000 kidneys transplanted worldwide every year come from the black market.”


HEALTH

Not Just Urban Legend

Organ trafficking was long considered a myth. But now mounting evidence suggests it is a real and growing problem, even in America.

By the time her work brought her back to the United States, Nancy Scheper-Hughes had spent more than a decade tracking the illegal sale of human organs across the globe. Posing as a medical doctor in some places and a would-be kidney buyer in others, she had linked gangsters, clergymen and surgeons in a trail that led from South Africa, Brazil and other developing nations all the way back to some of her own country’s best medical facilities. So it was that on an icy February afternoon in 2003, the anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, found herself sitting across from a group of transplant surgeons in a small conference room at a big Philadelphia hospital.

By accident or by design, she believed, surgeons in their unit had been transplanting black-market kidneys from residents of the world’s most impoverished slums into the failing bodies of wealthy dialysis patients from Israel, Europe and the United States. According to Scheper-Hughes, the arrangements were being negotiated by an elaborate network of criminals who kept most of the money themselves. For about $150,000 per transplant, these organ brokers would reach across continents to connect buyers and sellers, whom they then guided to “broker-friendly” hospitals here in the United States (places where Scheper-Hughes says surgeons were either complicit in the scheme or willing to turn a blind eye). The brokers themselves often posed as or hired clergy to accompany their clients into the hospital and ensure that the process went smoothly. The organ sellers typically got a few thousand dollars for their troubles, plus the chance to see an American city.

As she made her case, Scheper-Hughes, a diminutive 60-something with splashes of pink in her short, grayish-brown hair, slid a bulky document across the table—nearly 60 pages of interviews she had conducted with buyers, sellers and brokers in virtually every corner of the world. “People all over were telling me that they didn’t have to go to a Third World hospital, but could get the surgery done in New York, Philadelphia or Los Angeles,” she says. “At top hospitals, with top surgeons.” In interview after interview, former transplant patients had cited the Philadelphia hospital as a good place to go for brokered transplants. Two surgeons in the room had also been named repeatedly. Scheper-Hughes had no idea if those surgeons were aware that some of their patients had bought organs illegally. She had requested the meeting so that she could call the transgression to their attention, just in case.

Hospital officials told NEWSWEEK that after meeting with Scheper-Hughes, they conducted an internal review of their transplant program. While they say they found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of their surgeons, they did tighten some regulations, to ensure better oversight of foreign donors and recipients. “But that afternoon,” Scheper-Hughes says, “they basically threw me out.”

It’s little wonder. The exchange of human organs for cash or any other “valuable consideration” (such as a car or a vacation) is illegal in every country except Iran. Nonetheless, international organ trafficking—mostly of kidneys, but also of half-livers, eyes, skin and blood—is flourishing; the World Health Organization estimates that one fifth of the 70,000 kidneys transplanted worldwide every year come from the black market. Most of that trade can be explained by the simple laws of supply and demand. Increasing life spans, better diagnosis of kidney failure and improved surgeries that can be safely performed on even the riskiest of patients have spurred unprecedented demand for human organs. In America, the number of people in need of a transplant has nearly tripled during the past decade, topping 100,000 for the first time last October. But despite numerous media campaigns urging more people to mark the backs of their driver’s licenses, the number of traditional (deceased) organ donors has barely budged, hovering between 5,000 and 8,000 per year for the last 15 years.

In that decade and a half, a new and brutal calculus has emerged: we now know that a kidney from a living donor will keep you alive twice as long as one taken from a cadaver. And thanks to powerful antirejection drugs, that donor no longer needs to be an immediate family member (welcome news to those who would rather not risk the health of a loved one). In fact, surgeons say that a growing number of organ transplants are occurring between complete strangers. And, they acknowledge, not all those exchanges are altruistic. “Organ selling has become a global problem,” says Frank Delmonico, a surgery professor at Harvard Medical School and adviser to the WHO. “And it’s likely to get much worse unless we confront the challenges of policing it.”

For Scheper-Hughes, the biggest challenge has been convincing people that the problem exists at all. “It used to be a joke that came up at conferences and between surgeons,” she says. “In books and movies, you find these stories of people waking up in bathtubs full of ice with a scar where one of their kidneys used to be. People assumed it was just science fiction.” That assumption has proved difficult to dismantle. In the mid-1980s, rumors that Americans were kidnapping children throughout Central America only to harvest their organs led to brutal attacks on American tourists in the region. When those stories proved false, the State Department classified organ-trafficking reports under “urban legend.” Scheper-Hughes’s evidence, which is largely anecdotal and comes in part from interviews with known criminals, has not convinced department officials otherwise. “It would be impossible to successfully conceal a clandestine organ-trafficking ring,” Todd Leventhal, the department’s countermisinformation officer, wrote in a 2004 report, adding that stories like the ones Scheper-Hughes tells are “irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated.” In recent years, however, the WHO, Human Rights Watch and many transplant surgeons have broken with that view and acknowledged organ trafficking as a real problem.

At first, not even Scheper-Hughes believed the rumors. It was in the mid-1980s, during a study of infant mortality in the shantytowns of northern Brazil, that she initially caught wind of mythical “body snatcher” stories: vans of English-speaking foreigners would circle a village rounding up street kids whose bodies would later be found in trash bins removed of their livers, eyes, kidneys and hearts.

When colleagues in China, Africa and Colombia reported similar rumblings, Scheper-Hughes began poking around. Some stories—especially the ones about kidnapped children, stolen limbs and tourists murdered for organs—were clearly false. But it was also clear that slums throughout the developing world were full of AWOL soldiers, desperate parents and anxious teenage boys willing to part with a kidney or a slice of liver in exchange for cash and a chance to see the world—or at least to buy a car.

Before long, Scheper-Hughes had immersed herself in an underworld of surgeons, criminals and those eager to buy or sell whatever body parts could be spared. In Brazil, Africa and Moldova, newspapers advertised the sale and solicitation of human body parts while brokers trolled the streets with $100 bills, easily recruiting young sellers. In Istanbul, Scheper-Hughes posed as an organ buyer and talked one would-be seller down to $3,000 for his “best kidney.” In

But not all organs flowed from poor countries to rich ones; Americans, for example, were both buyers and sellers in this global market. A Kentucky woman once contacted Scheper-Hughes looking to sell her kidney or part of her liver so that she could buy some desperately needed dentures. And a Brooklyn dialysis patient purchased his kidney from Nick Rosen, an Israeli man who wanted to visit America.

Unlike some organ sellers, who told of dingy basement hospitals with less equipment than a spartan kitchen, Rosen found an organ broker through a local paper in Tel Aviv who arranged to have the transplant done at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. An amateur filmmaker, Rosen documented a portion of his odyssey on camera and sent the film to Scheper-Hughes, whose research he had read about online. The video excerpt that NEWSWEEK viewed shows Rosen meeting his broker and buyer in a New York coffee shop where they haggle over price, then entering Mount Sinai and talking with surgeons—one of whom asks him to put the camera away. Finally, after displaying his post-surgery scars for the camera, Rosen is seen rolling across a hotel bed covered in $20 bills; he says he was paid $15,000. (Brokers, on the other hand, typically net around $50,000 per transplant, after travel and other expenses. In America, some insurance plans will cover at least a portion of the donor’s medical expenses.)

The money changed hands outside the hospital’s corridors, and Rosen says that he deliberately misled the Mount Sinai doctors, but that no one there challenged him. “One hospital in Maryland screened us out,” he says. Tom Diflo, a transplant surgeon at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, points out that many would-be donors do not pass the psychological screening, and that attempting to film the event would probably have set off an alarm bell or two. “But the doctors at Mount Sinai were not very curious about me,” Rosen says. “We told them I was a close friend of the guy who I sold my kidney to, and that I was donating altruistically, and that was pretty much the end of it.” Citing privacy laws, Mount Sinai officials declined to comment on the details of Rosen’s case. But spokesperson Ian Michaels says that the hospital’s screening process is rigorous and comprehensive, and assesses each donor’s motivation. “All donors are clearly advised that it is against the law to receive money or gifts for being an organ donor,” he says. “The pretransplant evaluation may not detect premeditated and skillful attempts to subvert and defraud the evaluation process.”

Because many people do donate organs out of kindness, altruism provides an easy cover for those seeking to profit. And U.S. laws can be easy to circumvent, especially for foreign patients who may pay cash and are often gone in the space of a day. Diflo, who has worked in numerous transplant wards over the past two decades, says that while they are in the minority, hospitals that perform illegal transplants certainly exist in the United States. “There are a couple places around that have reputations for doing transplants with paid donors, and then some hospitals that have a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” he says. “It’s definitely happening, but it’s difficult to ferret out.”

Diflo became an outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that, rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis patients had their transplants done in China. There they could purchase the kidneys of executed prisoners. In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell organs to foreign buyers in order to contribute to the family’s income, or to provide for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable data are almost impossible to come by. “Nancy has done truly courageous work, literally risking her life to expose these networks,” says Delmonico. “But anecdotes are impossible to quantify.”

Scheper-Hughes acknowledges that in gathering these anecdotes she has frequently bumped up against the ethical boundaries of her own profession. While UC Berkeley (which funds most of her work) granted special permission for her to go undercover, she still takes heat from colleagues: misrepresenting oneself to research subjects violates a cardinal rule of academic research. “I expect my methods to be met with criticism,” she says. “But being an anthropologist should not mean being a bystander to crimes against the vulnerable.”

While Rosen has fared well since the surgery—he recovered quickly, used the money to travel and stays in touch with his kidney recipient via Facebook—most of the donors Scheper-Hughes and her colleagues have spoken with are not so lucky. Studies show that the health risks posed by donating a kidney are negligible, but those studies were all done in developed countries. “Recovery from surgery is much more difficult when you don’t have clean water or decent food,” says Scheper-Hughes. And research on the long-term effects of organ donation—in any country—is all but nonexistent.

Last may, Scheper-Hughes once again found herself sitting across from a group of transplant surgeons. This time they were not as incredulous. More than 100 of them had come from around the world to Istanbul for a global conference on organ trafficking. Together, they wrote and signed the Declaration of Istanbul, an international agreement vowing to stop the commodification of human organs. But unless their document is followed by action, it will be no match for the thriving organ market. Even as illegal trade is exposed, a roster of Web sites promising to match desperate dialysis patients with altruistic strangers continues to proliferate unchecked. These sites have some surgeons worried. “We have no way to tell if money is changing hands or not,” says Diflo. “People who need transplants end up trying to sell themselves to potential donors, saying, ‘I have a nice family, I go to church,’ etc. Is that really how we want to allocate organs?”

Maybe not. But in the United States, the average wait time for a kidney is expected to increase to 10 years by 2010. Most dialysis patients die in half that time, and the desperate don’t always play by the rules.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178873

Leia mais em:

Are Kidneys a Commodity?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/137544?tid=relatedcl

Organ Brokers

http://www.socyberty.com/Crime/Organ-Brokers.470441


%d blogueiros gostam disto: