"A few weeks ago, I wrote a news article discussing a successful procedure that produced a 3-parent baby."
Viewing entries tagged
chrisdidzbalis
"A five-month-old baby is living healthily after an incredibly unique birth."
The health of presidential candidates has been the topic of conversation on both sides of the political spectrum, as of late. Hillary Clinton (D) has been under intense scrutiny ever since her syncopal episode at a 9/11 memorial ceremony. Ms. Clinton was rushed into her private vehicle and taken to her daughter’s nearby apartment. Later, a campaign spokesperson revealed that Ms. Clinton had been diagnosed with pneumonia, two days prior. This incident, combined with recent coughing fits, has raised the eyes of the public as to the overall health of the Democratic presidential candidate.
There have been popular conspiracy theories for years regarding the health of Hillary Clinton. I do not plan discussing or even acknowledging these assertions. Rather, I believe it is more important to discuss a change in current political traditions. Presidential candidates should provide some form of confirmation by a group of physicians demonstrating that they are physically and mentally fit to serve as President of the United States.
Obviously, amending laws to make this proposition mandatory is incredibly involved and generally unlikely. However, this change can still result from a shift in the social standard, if the candidates are pressed by the people and media.
Why is this important from a bioethical standpoint? A sudden illness displayed to the public should not be the incident that prompts a release of medical records. The personal health of a presidential candidate is equally important as his policies. Trade negotiations, international crises, and other aspects of foreign policy suffer when a president is physically or mentally unfit to meet with other world leaders. At home, the sudden death or incapacitation of a president would rock the American political structure to its core.
As an American citizen, it seems almost morally wrong to elect a president who may fall into the aforementioned health category. I recognize that every citizen has a right to his privacy, and HIPPA laws do not allow healthcare workers to share private information regarding a patient’s health. However, Hillary Clinton’s recent medical episodes have prompted the need for change. All major presidential candidates should be assessed by a group of doctors in order to confirm that the candidate is fit to serve. An unhealthy candidate’s condition could worsen throughout the election cycle considering the intensity of the campaign trail, risking the safety of the candidate themself. The findings of these professional assessments should be released to the public for the sake of the people, the candidate, and the country.
Immigration has been the topic of conversation across the political sphere as of late. The combination of the European migration crisis and the porous southern US border has brought about a fierce debate as to what should be done socially and economically with immigrants. However, one aspect of our nation’s refugee acceptance and illegal immigration issue that has not been discussed as frequently is the impact on public health.
The United States has worked for decades to eradicate some of the diseases that frequently plagued the general population. Through vaccination, new sanitation standards, and updates to dated public health practices, we have eliminated many of the diseases that are still prevalent in other nations. Unfortunately, it is possible that the massive amount of undocumented immigrants entering our country unscreened could cause a spike in previously nonexistent illnesses.
According to multiple reports released over the past few years, including one released on World Migrant Day, the number of tuberculosis, measles, whooping cough, mumps, scarlet fever, and bubonic plague cases has increased. Many healthcare professionals have made a direct link to illegal immigration. Below are a few of the statistics:
Tuberculosis: Up 1.7% in 2015 after 23 years of decline
Measles: 667 Cases in 2014 after eradication in 2000
Whooping Cough: 32,971 cases in 2014, 30 times the amount in 1976
Mumps: 688 cases in 2015, after a 99% decrease in prevalence in 1967
All of these diseases have been linked to incoming refugees and undocumented immigrants through the southern border. Many of the camps that house illegal minors are plagued by disease. In 2014, former Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) wrote a scathing letter to Congress about the lack of transparency regarding disease transmission among immigrants. He cited reports of Border Patrol agents contracting diseases from the children. One major news station even reports that tuberculosis is prevalent in multiple camps, citing anonymous reports from healthcare workers employed. Not only is this detrimental to health of Americans, but also the health of the immigrants.
What is the Solution?
A significant amount of regulation is required in order to halt the spread of these infectious diseases. Currently, refugees are not required to have any vaccines prior to entering the United States. This poses a massive risk to our public health, as the MMR vaccine was directly responsible for eradicating measles after it was required by law. With potential disease carriers entering the U.S. in large numbers, it is almost guaranteed that the public will encounter new illnesses more frequently than before. One of the first steps in preventing further outbreaks is to halt refugee migration and develop a comprehensive screening system for communicable diseases. Additionally, vaccination should be required for all refugees entering the country. The combination of these two processes would eliminate the threat that refugees currently pose to public health.
With respect to the southern border, the U.S. government needs to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants entering the country by a significant amount. There is no way to analyze the health of individuals who have entered and now remain in the country illegally. The only way to prevent diseases from coming up through the southern border is to cut down on illegal immigration.
Our policy with regard to vaccination and screening significantly differs between migrants and refugees. Many vaccinations are required for United States immigration. This, combined with health screening, has resulted in an extremely small percentage of communicable diseases being brought into our country via legal immigration.
In short, the massive importation of refugees and illegal aliens into the nation is a very real threat to public health. A comprehensive reform to our refugee health policies and border security is essential to prevent the reoccurrence of deadly communicable diseases. Let’s not decimate the hard work of public health workers before us in their successful efforts to eradicate these illnesses.
References:
“Guidelines for Evaluating and Updating Immunizations During the Domestic Medical Examination for Newly Arrived Refugees.” Centers for Disease Control. 11 June, 2015.
“Illegal Alien Minors Spreading TB, Dengue, Swine Flu.” Judicial Watch. 8 July, 2014.
“New Vaccination Criteria for U.S. Immigration.” Centers for Disease Control. 29 March, 2012.
“Six Diseases Return to US as Migration Advocates Celebrate ‘World Refugee Day.’” Breitbart. 19 June, 2016.
Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years. Through selective breeding, the genetic makeup of crops has been altered to provide more desirable traits. As our understanding of genes progressed, so did our capability to alter plant genomes. Biologists created disease resistant and higher-yield crops genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in an attempt to develop a greater, more economically friendly food supply (Forbes). The most popularly known example of this success is the Vitamin-A enriched golden rice, which many believed would be the solution to global malnutrition issues at the start of the 21st century.
However, these alterations caused a great deal of controversy as their complexity increased. Many feared the newly labeled “frankenfoods,” and demanded investigations into their effects on environmental and personal health. As public fear held strong, multiple government institutions, including the FDA and National Academy of Science, launched extensive studies. After collecting data across multiple years, it was unanimously concluded that GMOs are completely safe for consumption (New York Times).
Even after the publication of many studies backing these conclusions, some Americans believe in further control of GMOs. Recently, many anti-GMO groups including “Right to Know” are demanding special labels on genetically modified foods. The group’s name truly states their demands. They believe that Americans have the right to know if their food has been genetically modified in any way, as they still believe GMOs can be harmful to personal health (GMO Awareness Site).
There is a plethora of reasons why this movement has no place in American politics. To begin, essentially all food has been genetically modified at some point in time. Even legally labeled “organic” foods have undergone some form of artificial selection to produce a greater crop yield or other desirable phenotypic traits. This alteration is genetic modification in and of itself. By labeling all genetically modified foods as such, essentially every fruit and vegetable, “organic” or not, is a GMO.
Additionally, forcing food companies to change labels is nonsensical in both economic and simple logical terms. The passage of such legislature is a senseless economic burden for both companies and the government. By using disease resistant and high-yield crops, companies are undoubtedly going to achieve greater economic success than those who use unmodified crops. Food distributors would need to redesign and print new labels, which is an unfair punishment for using inherently better business practices. Furthermore, whatever government body in charge of enforcing these new laws would need to expand, costing taxpayers more money or shifting funds from one agency to the aforementioned. Both of these resulting changes are completely unnecessary, as they would be performed all to enforce a law that serves no genuine purpose.
In conclusion, GMOs represent the future of food production. They pose no threat to personal health and only provide the global population with the potential for better diet and reduced hunger. Labeling genetically modified foods is completely nonsensical and provides no benefit to the American consumer.
The New York Times. Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Fins. May 17 2016.
GMO Awareness. Anti-GMO Groups in The United States. Web
FDA. Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. Web
Alison Van Eenennaam. The Journal of Animal Science. (Article unavailable online until October 1st, 2016)
Forbes. The Debate About GMO Safety is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion-Meal Study. Web
For a comprehensive list of many GMO related studies, please visit the following website: http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=52&autotry=true&ULnotkn=true
Over the course of the previous months, sweeping changes have been brought upon EMS protocols across the nation regarding spinal immobilization. Backboards, which have been thought to be key components in the protection of an injured patient’s nervous system, are slowly being removed from the world of first response. Our understanding of this form of spinal immobilization has been altered significantly, as multiple studies show that these devices pose more harm to a patient than benefit.
The typical image of a motor vehicle accident is a mangled car coupled with a patient restrained to a backboard, head between bright-orange blocks, with his neck secured with a cervical collar. This may become an illustration of the past, as new protocols state that only cervical collars are necessary to protect a patient’s spinal cord.
This massive change should be very beneficial to patients in the future. The abandonment of “backboarding” should produce shorter transport time to hospitals, diminish spinal injuries, and provide a much more comfortable experience for a patient in transport.
For further information regarding these policy changes as well as some of the research behind them, please refer to the following sources.
Research Suggests Time for Change in Prehospital Spinal Immobilization. Journal of EMS. 2013
The North Carolina Office of EMS. Protocols: Selective Spinal Motion Restriction.
Patients Immobilized with a Long Spine Board Rarely Have Unstable Thoracolumbar Injuries
Brian M. Clemency , Joseph A. Bart , Abhigyan Malhotra , Taylor Klun , Veronica Campanella , Heather A. Lindstrom
Prehospital Emergency Care
Vol. 20, Iss. 2, 2016