Posts Tagged ‘Health Problems’
Seven swine flu related deaths in UK
We have had seven deaths in the UK linked to swine flu. Though the flu has not been confirmed as the cause of death in all the new cases, it may have hastened it. The only thing reported about all seven cases is that they all suffered underlying health problems, despite the fact that they are all relatively young (under 40), except one. What these “underlying health problems” are is not revealed except in the case of the youngest – a girl of 6 with an immune disorder. The secrecy behind the health problems leaves one wondering if it is not a cover-up.
So far, most cases are mild, but the pandemic is spreading at an extremely rapid pace and it is expected to increase in the coming month, with predictions of around 100,000 new cases a day. At that rate, it would not be surprising for resistance to occur. In fact, it has already occurred outside of the UK. Given these statistics, I find it extremely shocking that there are some ill-informed people giving swine flu parties. With the holiday season coming on, the chances of catching swine flu seem almost inevitable.
Further negative effects of consuming soft drinks
I remember even as a child, the discussion of how bad Coke was for your teeth. It was not just Coke, but all sugary soft drinks. But it was the experiment with the nail in the Coke which highlighted the effect of “pop” or “fizzy drinks”, as my older daughter likes to call them, on teeth enamel. I still recall my reaction at the time. I found it very interesting that they still do similar experiments in school, as both my daughters performed this experiment this year, using water, milk, and pop. I hope they learned something from it, even if my younger daughter still likes an occasional soda, and both still like sweet drinks. Fortunately, it’s usually iced tea or orange juice.
So, we have known that pop, when consumed in excessive amounts, is bad for your teeth and bones. We also know that those with caffeine can cause problems with migraines and palpitations (rapid heart rate). Now, we find out that drinking too much of these soft drinks can lead to muscle weakness, fatigue, and even paralysis. These effects are due to the loss of potassium from the glucose, fructose and caffeine. Even without caffeine, the body can lose potassium through diarrhea from the high levels of fructose. Several people have come to medical attention after suffering serious adverse events due to excessive consumption of pop.
What is excessive consumption? Well, for those who ended up in the hospital, it ranged from 2-3 L/day up to 4-10 L/day. Of course, I cannot imagine drinking even that amount of water, so it’s hard for me to imagine drinking that amount of pop. Anyhow, scientists do not have a recommendation on the amount that is acceptable, but it would be safe to say that any amount may have small effects on levels of potassium. Needless to say, the sugars found in pop would very likely exacerbate diabetes and obesity, two big health problems today. If anything, it would probably be best to limit oneself to only one can of pop a day.
New growth charts for children to combat obesity
In an effort to identify babies at risk for obesity, the government will introduce new child growth rates charts. No longer will those pudgy, adorable babies be the norm. Instead, we will start seeing those slimmer, trimmer babies. That’s right, health experts want to encourage breast-feeding and it is well-known that breast-fed babies grow slower. However, it is recommended that after 6 months of breast-feeding, babies are given some baby food, which helps them grow faster.
I remember breast feeding my baby and we went for a well-baby check at around 4 months. The paediatrician had to keep re-weighing her because she could not believe the scale. According to her records, my little girl had not gained any weight since she was 2 months. She was falling off the growth chart. Yet, to look at her, she was as happy and healthy as could be. She was not the chubbiest of babies, but she had nice rolls in her thighs and her cheeks were full (they still are, 10 years on). So, we had to supplement with formula more.
Had we had different growth charts back then, perhaps the concern would not have been so great. She might have appeared on the overweight side at the beginning and dipped down to normal. As it was, she was average and had dipped to below average.
Since obesity leads to many health problems and we are now starting to recognise that obesity can begin very early in life, the change in growth charts will be able to identify those at risk. Of course, nothing is fool-proof, but it’s a start. It won’t mean that all heavy babies are obese. Only those who are not long enough to support their weight. The chart is meant to carry out weight-for-height measurements.
No longer will averages in weight and height depend on what is perceived to be the norm based on the majority of babies being fed formula, but on those being breast-fed. Should breast-fed babies increase in size in the future, the growth charts will change again. But, if obese women produce more milk and their babies feed more and eventually get bigger, will changing the growth charts at that time defeat the purpose? I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
Have advances in medicine caused people to become complacent?
We always greet advances in medicine with enthusiasm. We hope and pray for new treatments for serious health problems. We are grateful for technology that saves lives. Yet, there is a downside to all this technology.
We have extended lives and in doing so, we have created new problems, new illnesses. Take Alzheimer’s, for example. When people started living longer, we began to see a rise in what was initially thought to be senility. Now we have multiple diagnoses for dementia, one of which is Alzheimer’s. We have machines to keep people alive. Now we’ve run into ethical issues regarding end-of-life and right-to-die. When is it permissible or ethical to turn off the ventilator or remove the feeding tube? But another serious issue is that people start thinking that they can ignore serious health consequences because there are means of overcoming them.
I read an article about an HIV/AIDS survivor who expressed his concerns that young people are taking chances with their lives because they are no longer scared of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Had they witnessed first hand all the horrific side effects of HIV, they would not be so complacent. As it is, HIV treatment has allowed many survivors to live normal lives. Of course, this only applies to those who are being treated. But it is rare for young people in developed countries to see the consequences of AIDS. Perhaps, they need to visit Africa and see the devastation there.
Now, I’m not saying that medical advances are bad. They’re not. It’s great that we can conquer illnesses, but the fight is never won. The battle is never over. There will always be obstacles. Unfortunately, we shouldn’t have to keep fighting so many battles. If people could take responsibility for their actions, we might prevent disease, rather than have to tackle them afterwards. HIV/AIDS is still a major issue, but it does not attract attention as it did in the 1980s. People have forgotten how scary it was when we first heard about it. Young people today were not around to experience it. So, they ignore it. If they were to receive the diagnosis now, they probably would shrug it off and ask for the treatment. Their complacency means that they might not be compliant with the treatments.
Yet, I wonder if behaviour would change if young people knew first-hand about the seriousness of sexually-transmitted diseases. Would there be the same rate of unprotected sex and teenage pregnancies? Would there be any changes in attitude towards sexual activity? Is it really the advances in medicine that have produced this complacency or is it a generational attitude?
