Suplementos de vitamina D podem reduzir risco de Alzheimer – 10.000 UI, não menos

__

Mulheres devem tomar suplementos de vitamina D, segundo dois novos estudos. É que as que não têm níveis suficientes da substância ao atingir a meia-idade apresentam maiores chances de desenvolver Alzheimer, segundo estudo publicado pelo jornal Daily Mail.

A associação que já foi feita em pesquisas anteriores foi confirmada em dois novos levantamentos distintos.

O cientista Cedric Annweiler, do Hospital da Universidade de Angers, na França, analisou dados de 500 voluntárias. Constatou que as que receberam o diagnóstico de Alzheimer ingeriam uma média de 50,3 microgramas de vitamina D por semana, em comparação com 59 microgramas das que não apresentaram sinais da demência.

Enquanto isso, os pesquisadores liderados por Yelena Slinin, do Centro Médico VA, nos Estados Unidos, analisaram as taxas da vitamina de 6.257 pessoas do sexo feminino, que fizeram testes de habilidade mental. Baixos níveis de vitamina D (menos de 20 nanogramas por mililitro de sangue) foram associados com maiores probabilidades de deterioração cerebral.

A mentira homicida da “morte segura”: jovem com morte encefálica se recupera, quando médicos se preparavam para remover órgãos

 

quinta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2012

O caso aconteceu na Dinamarca. Carina Melchior, de 20 anos, foi internada em estado grave após um sério acidente de carro. A jovem, que estava num hospital na cidade de Aarthus, não respondeu bem aos tratamentos e os médicos acreditavam o estado vegetativo era irreversível caso ela sobrevivessem e conversaram com a família sobre o desligamento dos aparelhos e a retirada dos órgãos.
A família autorizou a doação e como Carina já estava com morte cerebral, os médicos já se preparavam para executar o procedimento. E então, um pouco antes, a jovem dinamarquesa acordou do coma e mexeu as pernas. Agora ela se recupera bem e já consegue andar e falar e acredita que vai conseguir ficar totalmente boa e já ressaltou que quer estudar para se tornar uma designer gráfica e morar sozinha.

O caso foi de grande repercussão na Dinamarca e causou um amplo debate político sobre a doação de órgãos e a eutanásia. Segundo reportagem do Daily Mail, os pais de Carina estão processando o hospital por acreditarem que os médicos agiram de forma precipitada quanto à retirada dos órgãos da filha. Muitos doadores de órgãos no país ficaram com medo que os médicos ajam de forma prematura e retiraram a autorização. O hospital em que Carina estava internada afirma que não houve erro na avaliação do quadro da jovem.

Fonte: G1

http://brasil.issoebrasilia.com.br/2012/10/foto-globo.html

__

Dad rescues ‘brain dead’ son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs – boy recovers completely

Esse mês de abril de 2012,  os “mortos encefálicos” – aqueles que muita gente diz “seguramente mortos” – estão dando risadas irreverentes nas notícias da mídia internacional para decisões como à proferida pelo STF, na ADPF 54, e para quem jura que o procedimento de morte encefálica não é o que – justamente – causa a morte do paciente traumatizado encefálico severo (homicídio) …

Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352
__
 

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Wed Apr 25, 2012 09:27 EST

LEICESTER, England, April 25, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the Daily Mail newspaper, a young British man owes his life to an insistent father who would not allow his son’s organs to be removed from his body, despite assurances from four doctors that his son could not recover from the wounds he had suffered in a recent car accident.

The Mail reports that Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Stephen Thorpe, who four doctors had declared brain dead

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity.  The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

The case is similar to dozens of others LifeSiteNews has reported in recent years, in which comatose or otherwise unconscious patients are declared to be “brain dead,” or hopelessly incurable. In many cases, aggressive doctors seek the organs of the patient for harvesting.

In 2011, the Quebec Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville sought permission to extract the eyes of a patient who had choked on hospital food in the absence of a nurse, claiming she was “brain dead.” After the family demanded proof from physicians of her alleged condition, she regained consciousness, and recovered most of her faculties. The family declared its intention to sue the hospital.

In 2008, a 45-year-old Frenchman revived on the operating table as doctors prepared to “harvest” his organs for donation, following cardiac arrest. In the subsequent investigation by the hospital’s ethics committee, a number of doctors admitted that such cases, while rare, were well known to them.

That same year, a “brain dead” 21-year-old American, Zack Dunlap, was about to have his organs harvested when his two sisters, both nurses, decided to test the hospital’s theory that his brain was no longer functioning. Family members poked his feet with a knife and dug their fingernails under his nails, provoking strong reactions by Dunlap and proving he was conscious. He recovered completely. He later related that he was conscious and aware as doctors discussed harvesting his organs in his presence.

The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still very much alive.

While death had previously been defined as lack of respiration and heart activity, “brain death” was judged as compatible with an otherwise living patient. “Brain death” has never been rigorously defined, and there are no standardized tests to determine if the condition exists.

Dr. John Shea, a medical advisor to LifeSiteNews.com, points out that patients diagnosed as “brain dead” often continue to exhibit brain functions.

In “Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth”, Shea states that the criteria for “brain death” only “test for the absence of some specific brain reflexes. Functions of the brain that are not considered are temperature control, blood pressure, cardiac rate and salt and water balance. When a patient is declared brain dead, these functions are not only still present, but also frequently active.”
A list of articles by LifeSiteNews on comotose and “brain dead” patients who unexpectedly recovered follows:

* Brain dead’ woman recovers after husband refuses to withdraw life support
* Woman Diagnosed as “Brain Dead” Walks and Talks after Awakening
* ‘Brain dead’ Quebec woman wakes up after family refuses organ donation
* Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
* Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death
* New study questions “brain-death” criterion for organ donation
* Coma Recovery After 19 Years Poses Questions About Terri Schiavo
* Polish Man Wakes from 19-Year “Coma”, Talks and Expected to Walk Soon
* Man Wakes from Two-Year Coma – was Aware and Remembers Everything
* Boy in “Hopeless” Vegetative State Awakens and Steadily Improves
* Commentary: The Significance of that Case of the Man Trapped in a “Coma” for 23 Years
* Girl Once Comatose and Scheduled for Euthanasia Will Testify against Attacker
* ‘Comatose’ UK Man Chooses Life by Moving Eyes
* Woman’s Waking After Brain Death Raises Many Questions About Organ Donation
* Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway
* Denver Coroner Rules “Homicide” in Organ-Donor Case

Related links:

The boy who came back from the dead: Experts said car crash teen was beyond hope. His parents disagreed

Fonte: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r

___

The near-death experience of the medical profession

Daily Mail, 11 September 2006

“Medical science, in other words, has been playing God. The Cambridge experiment has demonstrated just how horrifyingly wrong that was.”

The ghastly prospect that, as a result of catastrophic illness, doctors might write you off as dead even though you are well aware of what is going on but can’t communicate that you are still alive, is the stuff of nightmares.

 

Such concern is often expressed about patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), but until now this has been pooh-poohed by doctors as fanciful and alarmist.

 

They have asserted with unchallengeable confidence that the damage to these patients’ brains means that it is physically impossible for them ever again to be aware of anything.

 

As a result, ever since the landmark 1993 case of the Hillsborough disaster victim Tony Bland, the law has allowed doctors to stop giving such patients food and fluids on the grounds that this permits them finally to die and thus end a ‘living death’.

 

Actually, since they are not dying, it does nothing of the sort; it is more truthful to call it legalised killing. This objection, however, is brushed aside on the basis that, since they feel nothing, such patients are as good as dead, and protesters are dismissed as cranks or religious extremists.

 

But now, graphic evidence has been produced that such clinical arrogance is wholly misplaced. A team of Cambridge neuroscientists has reported that a woman who had suffered a severe head injury in a road accident, and seemed unable to communicate or respond to any stimulus, actually played tennis in her head and made a mental tour of her home when asked to do so by the research team.

 

Doctors said she retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to respond to them through activity in her brain which they were able to monitor and which was the same as the brain activity of a healthy person.

 

This revelation, which has astounded the medical profession, has the most profound ethical implications. It proves dramatically that even where a doctor pronounces that a patient will never recover consciousness, this certainly does not mean that the patient is dead. And it raises the horrifying possibility that PVS patients may have been starved or dehydrated to death even though they might have felt what was happening to them.

 

It also calls sharply into question the practice of switching off the life-support machines of others who are in a deep coma. The fact is that these patients are alive, and the Cambridge experiment rubs the doctors’ noses in this most inconvenient fact — one that they have tried so hard to deny.

 

The case exposes the total absence of humility of a medical profession that pretends to know what it cannot possibly know. Much that goes on in the brain, especially around the issue of consciousness, remains utterly mysterious and unexplained.

 

Yet doctors arrogantly assume that they know enough about the brain not only to declare that their patients will never recover any sensation but, worse still, that in some cases they are actually dead.

 

This has implications even more sensitive than for sufferers from PVS. For the medical definition of ‘brain-stem death’ underpins organ donation, which gives people who would otherwise die of chronic disease the chance of gaining a healthy life through an organ transplant.

 

A new law that has just come into operation has deprived relatives of their power of automatic veto over the removal of organs from loved ones who carried donor cards. This is aimed to tackle the chronic shortage of organ donors, which means that every year some 500 people die waiting for a transplant.

 

Doctors will now be able to override relatives’ objections unless they feel that these are overwhelming. But relatives are often reluctant to give their consent for organs to be removed because they see that the body of their loved one remains healthily pink and with a heart that is still beating.

 

The philosopher Baroness Warnock, that self-appointed national arbiter of where life begins and ends, says such squeamishness is inevitably based on ‘irrational sentiment or irrational dogma’. But this is simply as ignorant as it is offensive.

 

For the fact is that the medical profession has redefined death purely for the benefit of the transplant programme. It has defined the point of death as the failure of the brain-stem to respond to certain tests, with the resulting additional diagnosis of the irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness and the capacity to breathe.

 

But testing the brain-stem cannot exclude all possibility of recovery in every case — not least because it does not test the higher parts of the brain that may still be functioning. That is why, as a recent report from a German neurosurgical unit revealed, two of their patients diagnosed as brain-stem dead actually ‘recovered’. In other words, they were not dead at all.

 

Moreover, some anaesthetists who paralyse ‘brain-stem dead’ patients to enable their organs to be removed give them a general anaesthetic as well— just in case they may still have some feeling during the procedure.

 

Whoever heard of anaesthetising a corpse to avoid the slightest chance of causing it pain or distress? This in itself demonstrates that, even for doctors involved in organ removal for transplant purposes, the definition of death is wholly artificial and even meaningless.

 

Yet such is the pressure of the transplant programme, they insist on ignoring or even denying the considerable body of evidence giving rise to such doubts within the profession. The Royal College of Anaesthetists recently upheld the brain-stem death definition and repeated the claim that is frequently made in such circles that ‘death is a process rather than an event’.

 

But this is absurd. Dying is a process; death is indeed an event. The distinction has been blurred simply because death has become too inconvenient. Organs for transplant cannot usefully be extracted from the dead, so they are being taken instead on occasion from people who may at most be dying —at which point the ‘event’ of death certainly does take place.

 

Of course, it is a noble ideal to save the lives of those who are desperately ill. And some whose organs are harvested are undoubtedly dead. But what if the transplant programme does not always take organs from corpses but from living people who are actually killed by this process — and more horrifying still, may even have some awareness of their surroundings?

 

The uncomfortable fact is that we have redefined our understanding of death so that it no longer applies in circumstances where life has become too inconvenient. Our society no longer believes in absolutes — even those such as life or death — if they stop scientists from fulfilling their promise to deliver happiness to all.

Thus when the traditional understanding that human life begins at conception started getting in the way of embryo research, which was said to benefit infertile couples or help find a cure for genetic disease, Lady Warnock obligingly and arbitrarily shifted the start of life to 14 days’ gestation.

 

Thus, when the traditional understanding that death occurs when the heart stops beating started preventing organs being harvested for transplant purposes, doctors redefined the point of death as the failure of the brain stem instead.

 

Medical science, in other words, has been playing God. The Cambridge experiment has demonstrated just how horrifyingly wrong that was.

 
Fonte: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=449

__


%d blogueiros gostam disto: