Saibam: o termo de consentimento para o uso criminoso da hidroxicloroquina não tem valor jurídico algum, é nulo. A responsabilidade criminal continua presente

O Governo Bolsonaro insiste em desrespeitar a autonomia médica garantida pela nossa legislação, insiste em revogar o Código de Ética Médica, o Código Penal e a Constituição Federal, o que é impossível; e, portanto, praticar crime ordinário do Artigo 132 do Código Penal, podendo evoluir para o do Artigo 121, homicídio por dolo eventual. Fora os crimes de responsabilidade da Lei 1079 de 1950.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

 

Em 03.04.2020, a FIOCRUZ emitiu Nota Técnica oficial sobre efeitos apenas adversos da hidroxicloroquina para o Covid-19, inclusive letais

Associação de tratamento com hidroxicloroquina ou azitromicina com mortalidade hospitalar em pacientes com COVID-19 no estado de Nova York – JAMA, May 11, 2020

Resultado do uso da hidroxicloroquina em pacientes com Covid – 19:
“O desfecho primário foi a mortalidade hospitalar. Os desfechos secundários foram parada cardíaca e achados anormais no eletrocardiograma (arritmia ou prolongamento do intervalo QT).”

___________________
Publicação da Revista Científica JAMA

May 11, 2020

Association of Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin With In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 in New York State

JAMA. Publicado online em 11 de maio de 2020. doi: 10.1001 / jama.2020.8630

Pontos chave

Pergunta   Entre os pacientes com doença de coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), existe associação entre o uso de hidroxicloroquina, com ou sem azitromicina, e a mortalidade hospitalar?

Resultados   Em um estudo de coorte retrospectivo de 1438 pacientes hospitalizados na região metropolitana de Nova York, em comparação com o tratamento com nenhum medicamento, a taxa de risco ajustada para mortalidade hospitalar para tratamento apenas com hidroxicloroquina foi de 1,08, para azitromicina isolada foi de 0,56 e para hidroxicloroquina combinada a azitromicina foi de 1,35. Nenhuma dessas taxas de risco foi estatisticamente significativa.

Significado   Entre os pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, o tratamento com hidroxicloroquina, azitromicina ou ambos não foi associado a uma mortalidade intra-hospitalar significativamente menor.

Resumo

Importância hidroxicloroquina, com ou sem azitromicina, tem sido considerada como um possível agente terapêutico para pacientes com doença de coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19). No entanto, existem dados limitados sobre eficácia e eventos adversos associados.

Objetivo   Descrever a associação entre o uso de hidroxicloroquina, com ou sem azitromicina, e os resultados clínicos em pacientes hospitalizados com diagnóstico de COVID-19.

Estudo, cenário e participantes 

Estudo de coorte multicêntrico retrospectivo de pacientes de uma amostra aleatória de todos os pacientes admitidos com COVID-19 confirmado em laboratório em 25 hospitais, representando 88,2% dos pacientes com COVID-19 na região metropolitana de Nova York. Os pacientes elegíveis foram admitidos por pelo menos 24 horas entre 15 e 28 de março de 2020. Medicamentos, condições pré-existentes, medidas clínicas de admissão, resultados e eventos adversos foram extraídos dos prontuários médicos. A data do acompanhamento final foi em 24 de abril de 2020.

Exposições   Recebimento de hidroxicloroquina e azitromicina, hidroxicloroquina isolada, azitromicina isolada ou nenhuma das duas.

Principais resultados e medidas   O desfecho primário foi a mortalidade hospitalar. Os desfechos secundários foram parada cardíaca e achados anormais no eletrocardiograma (arritmia ou prolongamento do intervalo QT).

Resultados   Entre 1438 pacientes hospitalizados com diagnóstico de COVID-19 (858 [59,7%] do sexo masculino, idade média, 63 anos), aqueles que receberam hidroxicloroquina, azitromicina ou ambos tiveram maior probabilidade do que aqueles que não receberam nenhum medicamento para ter diabetes, frequência respiratória > 22 / min, achados anormais de imagem torácica, O 2saturação menor que 90% e aspartato aminotransferase maior que 40 U / L. A mortalidade hospitalar geral foi de 20,3% (IC 95%, 18,2% -22,4%). A probabilidade de morte dos pacientes que receberam hidroxicloroquina + azitromicina foi de 189/735 (25,7% [IC95%, 22,3% -28,9%]), hidroxicloroquina isolada, 54/271 (19,9% [IC95%, 15,2% -24,7%]). ), azitromicina isolada, 21/211 (10,0% [IC 95%, 5,9% -14,0%]) e nenhum medicamento 28/221 (12,7% [IC 95%, 8,3% -17,1%]). Nos modelos de riscos proporcionais de Cox ajustados, em comparação com os pacientes que não receberam nenhum medicamento, não houve diferenças significativas na mortalidade dos pacientes que receberam hidroxicloroquina + azitromicina (HR, 1,35 [IC 95%, 0,76-2,40]), hidroxicloroquina isolada (HR, 1,08 [95 % IC, 0,63-1,85]) ou azitromicina sozinha (HR, 0,56 [IC 95%, 0,26-1,21]). Nos modelos logísticos, em comparação com pacientes que não receberam parada cardíaca por droga foi significativamente mais provável em pacientes que receberam hidroxicloroquina + azitromicina (OR ajustado, 2,13 [IC 95%, 1,12-4,05]), mas não hidroxicloroquina isolada (OR ajustado, 1,91 [IC 95%, 0,96- 3,81]) ou azitromicina isolada (OR ajustado, 0,64 [IC 95%, 0,27-1,56]),. Nos modelos de regressão logística ajustados, não houve diferenças significativas na probabilidade relativa de achados anormais de eletrocardiograma.

Conclusões e relevância   Entre os pacientes hospitalizados na região metropolitana de Nova York com COVID-19, o tratamento com hidroxicloroquina, azitromicina, ou ambos, em comparação com nenhum dos tratamentos, não foi significativamente associado a diferenças na mortalidade hospitalar. No entanto, a interpretação desses achados pode ser limitada pelo desenho observacional.

(…)

Continuar leitura:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766117?guestAccessKey=eaf2770a-b734-4120-9b16-250a14b8185f&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_term=mostread&utm_content=olf-widget_05152020

____________

HIDROXICLOROQUINA RESULTA NISTO:

cemetery christian christianity church

Foto por Pixabay em Pexels.com

‘Brain dead’ Quebec woman wakes up after family refuses organ donation

__

“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.

LifeSiteNews ^ | 7/7/11 | Rebecca Millette

Posted on quinta-feira, 7 de julho de 2011 19:55:43 by wagglebee

DROMMONDVILLE, Quebec, July 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last week, Madeleine Gauron, a Quebec woman identified as viable for organ donation after doctors diagnosed her as “brain dead,” surprised her family and physicians when she recovered from a coma, opened her eyes, and began eating.

 

The 76-year-old woman was hospitalized at the Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville for an inflammation of the gums, which required a brief operation.  During her recovery, hospital staff gave the elderly woman solid food, which she had been unable to consume in her family home for some time, and left her unattended.  Choking on the food, she fell into a coma, after unsuccessful resuscitation.

 

Medical staff contacted her family, explaining to them that their mother was “brain dead,” with no hope of recovery.  Citing Gauron’s eyes as particularly viable, the doctors asked if the family would agree to organ donation.

 

While supporting the possibility of donation, her shocked family first demanded further medical tests to prove Gauron was really dead.

 

The next day, the family was astonished to learn that Gauron had awakened.  Shortly afterwards, she sat up in bed and ate yogurt.

 

“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.

 

“It makes no sense to treat people like that. Although she is 76 years old and is ill, she did not have to suffer all this,” insisted her daughter.

 

Madeleine Gauron is now able to eat, walk and talk, and immediately recognized her family. Her children have decided to take legal action against the hospital.

 

As anecdotes similar to Gauron’s continue to pile up, “brain death” as a legitimate diagnosis of actual death is increasingly being questioned by concerned family members and medical professionals, some of whom have charged that the “brain death” criteria was created simply to ensure that harvested organs are fresh.

 

Currently, more than half of Swedish intensive care nurses who care for purportedly brain dead patients have doubts about methods for establishing brain death, according to a recent survey released by Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg.

 

While regulations require Swedish physicians to ascertain brain death through particular clinical tests, further analysis in conjunction with brain x-rays are only done for select patients.

 

The author of the thesis, Anne Flodén, a registered nurse and researcher at the Institute of Health and Care Sciences, said the outcome of the study was problematic, indicating the need for clear guidelines surrounding the process of diagnosis and organ donation.

 

“This problem was raised by many of the ICU nurses in several of the studies,” said Flodén. “They were disappointed in the lack of structure and guidelines and are therefore calling for more support from management on these issues.”

 

Related Stories

‘Brain dead’ woman recovers after husband refuses to withdraw life support

No ‘moral certainty’ that brain death is really death: prominent Catholic ethics professor Brugger

“Brain Death” is Life, Not Death: Neurologists, Philosophers, Neonatologists, Jurists, and Bioethici

“Brain Death” Test Causes Brain Necrosis and Kills Patients: Neurologist to Rome Conference

“Brain Death” as Criteria for Organ Donation is a “Deception”: Bereaved Mother

__

Eda Haredit: Organ donation is murder

__

Following ‘Zionist rabbinate’s shocking seal of approval’ to recognize brain-respiratory death, Badatz rabbis issue announcement saying brain dead patients ‘alive in every way, life support must not be disconnected’

Kobi Nahshoni

Published: 11.01.09, 16:19 / Israel Jewish Scene

 

Following a Ynet report on the Chief Rabbinate’s decision to recognize brain-respiratory death, thus allowing organ donations in accordance with Jewish religious laws, the Badatz, the Eda Haredit’s high court, ruled that taking organs from a person in such a condition or removing him or her from life support is murder.

In an announcement published in the ultra-Orthodox organization’s journal, ‘HaEda’, the Badatz, headed by Yitzhak Tuvia Weiss reiterated the ruling that was given almost two-years ago, “in light of the Zionist rabbinate’s shocking seal of approval”.

The announcement said, “We have already ruled and given a clear Torah judgment… that brain death or brain stem death are not defined as death, and if organs are taken from (a person in such a condition) it is murder.

“We repeat that such a ruling already exists, and life support must not be disconnected, the person is alive in every way.”

The Eda Haredit’s firm stance is in line with that of the mainstream ultra-Orthodox public’s position, as it expressed in the community’s Yated Ne’eman daily paper.

An editorial published after the Chief Rabbinate’s ruling titled “Caution: Bloodshed” criticized the rabbis’ debate over the matter, saying, “There is no place of discussions or debates in this matter” and protested the fact that “Every student is allowing himself to give ‘educated opinions’ and present ‘halachic studies’ in the matter as they please.”

The editorial said that paper would “continue to express the Torah and the halacha’s stance against these dangerous initiatives, as part of its role and its mission as a form of expression of the Torah world and the God-fearing public standing on the front lines of the struggle for the sanctity of life according to halacha.”

Last month the Chief Rabbinate ruled that the Organ Donation Law’s definition of brain death at the moment of death is in line with that of the halacha. However, arbiter Yosef Sholom Elyashiv maintains his objection to the ruling, and views cessation of cardiac rhythm as moment of death.

The Chief Rabbinate’s decision ratifies a ruling given by the council in 1987 on determining the moment of death. At the time, the rabbis ruled out organ donation after the medical establishment objected to having a rabbinical representative join the team that determines death.

Now that the law has been approved, there is no concern that doctors may pronounce someone dead against halacha, and the rabbinate decided to introduce a new organ donation initiative, parallel to that of the National Transplant and Organ Donations Center.
__
%d blogueiros gostam disto: