http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/12/mandelson-clegg-brown-coalition-talks
During coalition talks for a so-called Lib Lab-government (Liberal Democrats and Labour), Nick Clegg is said to have pressured Gordon Brown to leave Downing Street. Peter Mandelson was present at the coalition meetings and is now spreading all the stories about what supposedly happened between Lib and Lab. Also, Labour would have to accept a new election system without even holding a referendum to hear the opinion of the public, claims Mandelson. The meeting on which this all is said to have happened, was kept secret for a long time, according to Mandelson.
My opinion:
I believe it is rather silly and useless to keep continuing the discussion about what did and did not happen in coalition talks. There is a coalition with LibDem and Conservatives now, so I do not feel that "What really happened during the coalition talks?" is the most important question the UK should worry about. If Nick Clegg really pressured Gordon Brown in this way, I believe that to be a bit of a dirty way of negotiating, but then again, politics has more than once been said to be war, and I suppose this event proves that statement.
maandag 12 juli 2010
UK recession even deeper than first thought
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/12/uk-recession-deeper-than-first-thought
Recent research by the government shows that the recession in the UK is even worse than was thought before. Current figures show that this recession is deeper even than the one at the beginning of the 80's, and is worse than the Great Depression-recession in the 1930's. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that the economic decline was 6,4%, which is higher than the original estimate made, which aimed for 6,2%. Another thing indicated by the ONS, is the fact that the economy is mainly kept alive and growing due to state spending, as consumers still save a lot and therefore do not contribute much to the growth of the economy.
My opinion:
I found this article rather dull to read. Economy is a very important topic, especially considering the recent recessions, the bank problems and all that, but economic growth and all that still are not really fascinating. The fact that the state keeps the economy alive rather than the consumers doing so, is not really surprising in my opinion, as most people tend to stop spending in economically bad times, because they do not want to get into trouble due to their spending habits. When the economy gets better, so will the consumer spending.
Recent research by the government shows that the recession in the UK is even worse than was thought before. Current figures show that this recession is deeper even than the one at the beginning of the 80's, and is worse than the Great Depression-recession in the 1930's. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that the economic decline was 6,4%, which is higher than the original estimate made, which aimed for 6,2%. Another thing indicated by the ONS, is the fact that the economy is mainly kept alive and growing due to state spending, as consumers still save a lot and therefore do not contribute much to the growth of the economy.
My opinion:
I found this article rather dull to read. Economy is a very important topic, especially considering the recent recessions, the bank problems and all that, but economic growth and all that still are not really fascinating. The fact that the state keeps the economy alive rather than the consumers doing so, is not really surprising in my opinion, as most people tend to stop spending in economically bad times, because they do not want to get into trouble due to their spending habits. When the economy gets better, so will the consumer spending.
Jamie Oliver calls for more funding to back school meals revolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/08/jamie-oliver-school-meals
Jamie Oliver wants the government to invest more money in the project that tries to reform the school meals. He made these statements after the announcement of the results accomplished so far, which show that more and more children eat healthy meals at their schools. Oliver said that current positive results are an indication that the government should invest even more money, to continue the positive line and to make sure that the results will not turn out to be a temporary success. However, the department of Education has announced not to continue the 'healty-food'-subsidy they used to give to local councils in order for them to make schools serve healthy meals.
My opinion:
I think this should receive the amount of priority Jamie Oliver is trying to achieve. Of course, healthy school meals are important, but I believe that, considering the necessity of cuts being made in the United Kingdom, measurements such as these should not be on top of the priority list. In my opinion it is more important to make sure school buildings are renovated (for example, of course) than to make sure those same schools serve healthy dishes. I understand Jamie Oliver's wish to continue the project, but I believe he, too, should be realistic about the financial problems the country is facing. Therefore I believe this project should not be continued.
Jamie Oliver wants the government to invest more money in the project that tries to reform the school meals. He made these statements after the announcement of the results accomplished so far, which show that more and more children eat healthy meals at their schools. Oliver said that current positive results are an indication that the government should invest even more money, to continue the positive line and to make sure that the results will not turn out to be a temporary success. However, the department of Education has announced not to continue the 'healty-food'-subsidy they used to give to local councils in order for them to make schools serve healthy meals.
My opinion:
I think this should receive the amount of priority Jamie Oliver is trying to achieve. Of course, healthy school meals are important, but I believe that, considering the necessity of cuts being made in the United Kingdom, measurements such as these should not be on top of the priority list. In my opinion it is more important to make sure school buildings are renovated (for example, of course) than to make sure those same schools serve healthy dishes. I understand Jamie Oliver's wish to continue the project, but I believe he, too, should be realistic about the financial problems the country is facing. Therefore I believe this project should not be continued.
A date with death
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/06/death-date-predicting
Scientists are getting closer and closer to being able to predict the date of one's death. Causes of death such as genetic diseases (for example Huntington, which I mentioned in my previous blog), and being able to predict the process of Alzheimer's disease in a patient from up to ten years before the disease actually shows itself (using a special protein that supposedly is an early indication of Alzheimer developing) are all signs on the wall that we are able to predict more and more about our health's development. Also, scientists discovered a gene and, based on that, developed a genetic test which should be able to prove whether a person will reach 100 years of age. All this made the author wonder: Do we want to know our death date?
My opinion:
I think I would want to know my death date, because it gives me the chance to do everything I want to do and know that I can safely pass away when my time comes. If, for example, I get hit by a train tomorrow, there are still many things I have not yet been able to do, see or experience, and if the scientists reach the point at which they can predict your death date, that means I know beforehand and can work on my so-called bucket list early on in life. On the other hand, it would be a creepy thought, knowing "Oh, I have only 1000 days of life left and then I will die". So yeah, I definitely see the difficulty the author aimed for with this article.
Scientists are getting closer and closer to being able to predict the date of one's death. Causes of death such as genetic diseases (for example Huntington, which I mentioned in my previous blog), and being able to predict the process of Alzheimer's disease in a patient from up to ten years before the disease actually shows itself (using a special protein that supposedly is an early indication of Alzheimer developing) are all signs on the wall that we are able to predict more and more about our health's development. Also, scientists discovered a gene and, based on that, developed a genetic test which should be able to prove whether a person will reach 100 years of age. All this made the author wonder: Do we want to know our death date?
My opinion:
I think I would want to know my death date, because it gives me the chance to do everything I want to do and know that I can safely pass away when my time comes. If, for example, I get hit by a train tomorrow, there are still many things I have not yet been able to do, see or experience, and if the scientists reach the point at which they can predict your death date, that means I know beforehand and can work on my so-called bucket list early on in life. On the other hand, it would be a creepy thought, knowing "Oh, I have only 1000 days of life left and then I will die". So yeah, I definitely see the difficulty the author aimed for with this article.
Fear of insurance penalties keeps Huntington's sufferers in the shadows
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/30/huntingtons-disease-fear-insurance-penalties
The chairman of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, stated that Huntington's disease needs far more attention. Current records indicate that approximately 7 in 100.000 Britons suffer from Huntington's disease which makes it a low-priority condition for research, but Rawlins believes this number is much lower than the real amount, because many Huntington's sufferers or carriers of the gene are afraid of saying this, because it makes their health insurance much more expensive. Only about 20% of the people at risk of carrying the Huntington's gene, actually take a test to establish whether or not they will be getting the neuro-degenerative disease, most of which are people wanting to have children. An all-parliamentary group is now being formed in order to draw more attention to Huntington's disease and to try and decrease the stigmas surrounding the disease.
My opinion:
I believe it to be unbelievable that people are afraid of having a genetic and serious disease diagnosed because the health insurance will punish them for carrying the gene! Especially considering the fact that this also negatively influences the prevalence numbers, in my opinion something needs to be done about this as soon as possible. People may never be punished for health issues, and making people pay more insurance because of their genetic make-up is just totally unethical and wrong. I am therefore happy with the formation of a group to draw more attention to the matter. I hope this will help killing the stigmas.
The chairman of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, stated that Huntington's disease needs far more attention. Current records indicate that approximately 7 in 100.000 Britons suffer from Huntington's disease which makes it a low-priority condition for research, but Rawlins believes this number is much lower than the real amount, because many Huntington's sufferers or carriers of the gene are afraid of saying this, because it makes their health insurance much more expensive. Only about 20% of the people at risk of carrying the Huntington's gene, actually take a test to establish whether or not they will be getting the neuro-degenerative disease, most of which are people wanting to have children. An all-parliamentary group is now being formed in order to draw more attention to Huntington's disease and to try and decrease the stigmas surrounding the disease.
My opinion:
I believe it to be unbelievable that people are afraid of having a genetic and serious disease diagnosed because the health insurance will punish them for carrying the gene! Especially considering the fact that this also negatively influences the prevalence numbers, in my opinion something needs to be done about this as soon as possible. People may never be punished for health issues, and making people pay more insurance because of their genetic make-up is just totally unethical and wrong. I am therefore happy with the formation of a group to draw more attention to the matter. I hope this will help killing the stigmas.
Andrew Lansley to cut thousands of jobs in purge of NHS 'bureaucracy'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/andrew-lansley-jobs-purge-nhs
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will probably cut thousands of jobs at the National Health Service because he believes there is too much bureaucracy in the organisation. Lansley will probably abolish whole departments of the NHS, including the 2000 employee-Food Standards Agency. Lansley says the money saved will equal the salaries of 30.000 nurses and promises that the money will be reinvested in what he calls frontline services, and as such, believes this will improve the healthcare offered to the British public. This does, however, mean the sacking of possibly tens of thousands of managers, administrative workers and so on.
My opinion:
I am all in favour of cutting bureaucracy, but I believe it to be unethical to fire thousands of people who cannot help their jobs were created as a part of that same bureaucracy, just because of that same oh so popular b-word. It appears as though the coalition government is being very populist, always shouting "Bureaucracy!" to compensate for their harsh cuts on all departments. Also, abolishing whole departments is probably a bit over-enthusiastic, to put it that way. I believe such cuts should first be researched properly (which has not been the case, from what I can judge based on the article) before trying to get nice headlines with such remarks.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will probably cut thousands of jobs at the National Health Service because he believes there is too much bureaucracy in the organisation. Lansley will probably abolish whole departments of the NHS, including the 2000 employee-Food Standards Agency. Lansley says the money saved will equal the salaries of 30.000 nurses and promises that the money will be reinvested in what he calls frontline services, and as such, believes this will improve the healthcare offered to the British public. This does, however, mean the sacking of possibly tens of thousands of managers, administrative workers and so on.
My opinion:
I am all in favour of cutting bureaucracy, but I believe it to be unethical to fire thousands of people who cannot help their jobs were created as a part of that same bureaucracy, just because of that same oh so popular b-word. It appears as though the coalition government is being very populist, always shouting "Bureaucracy!" to compensate for their harsh cuts on all departments. Also, abolishing whole departments is probably a bit over-enthusiastic, to put it that way. I believe such cuts should first be researched properly (which has not been the case, from what I can judge based on the article) before trying to get nice headlines with such remarks.
zondag 11 juli 2010
Michael Gove urged to help most run-down schools
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/11/michael-gove-school-cuts-criticism
Michael Gove, the secretary of education, is being pressured to change his plans concerning the cuts on 700 school rebuilding projects. Both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives demanded the secretary to confirm that plans would be made to help the schools in desperate need of renovation despite changing the current building plans. Even a lot of Gove's own LibDem-colleagues criticise him for these plans. He argued that changing the plans was allowed because they cost a lot of money as a result of an overload of bureaucracy. Gove's cuts are part of the massive cuts being done by the coalition government, but the coalition is also under pressure due to Gove's actions, as LibDem and Tories seem to have some strong differences on the issue.
My opinion:
I believe these cuts are unheard of. Of course, bureaucracy is something that should be fought, but I believe that plans consisting of too much bureaucracy cannot be a reason for schools to lose their rebuilding funds. I understand the demand for a solution for schools in urgent need of renovation, and I believe the MPs could, and perhaps, should, have been even more strict and demand for the plan to be continued and only be cut on the bureaucracy-aspect. Also, I think this shows the first cracks appearing in the coalition-government, with politicians on both sides hurrying to express their opinion on the matter. I wonder how this will end...
Michael Gove, the secretary of education, is being pressured to change his plans concerning the cuts on 700 school rebuilding projects. Both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives demanded the secretary to confirm that plans would be made to help the schools in desperate need of renovation despite changing the current building plans. Even a lot of Gove's own LibDem-colleagues criticise him for these plans. He argued that changing the plans was allowed because they cost a lot of money as a result of an overload of bureaucracy. Gove's cuts are part of the massive cuts being done by the coalition government, but the coalition is also under pressure due to Gove's actions, as LibDem and Tories seem to have some strong differences on the issue.
My opinion:
I believe these cuts are unheard of. Of course, bureaucracy is something that should be fought, but I believe that plans consisting of too much bureaucracy cannot be a reason for schools to lose their rebuilding funds. I understand the demand for a solution for schools in urgent need of renovation, and I believe the MPs could, and perhaps, should, have been even more strict and demand for the plan to be continued and only be cut on the bureaucracy-aspect. Also, I think this shows the first cracks appearing in the coalition-government, with politicians on both sides hurrying to express their opinion on the matter. I wonder how this will end...
White workforce 'hampering GCHQ anti-terror efforts'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/11/gchq-anti-terror-ethnic-minority
The British anti-terrorism organisation GCHQ, that is responsible for eavesdropping, could achieve better results than they currently do, if they hired more ethnic minorities. Black and Asian intelligence officers complained of a 'racist environment', and the company's 5000-people staff only contains very few Asian and black people. The management itself is even completely 'white'. The company's white culture harms their productivity because a big part of their work is tracking communication between terrorist suspects, which is often in other languages such as Urdu and Arabic. The lack of employees speaking the respective languages has proven to harm efforts in detecting codes and cultural nuances in conversations intercepted by the GCHQ.
My opinion:
It is rather stupid to not employ ethnic minorities in an organisation like the GCHQ, especially since these minorities may have the requested languages as their mother tongue. Also, I believe such an organisation should represent the society well, and having nearly no ethnic minorities in the company, and none whatsoever in the higher ranks, does not represent society well. I believe it would not even be positive discrimination to specifically hire people of a certain ethnic background, considering this background is relevant for the job requirements. Therefore I feel the company should start hiring people based on both background ánd skills, to re-establish a balanced ethnic staff.
The British anti-terrorism organisation GCHQ, that is responsible for eavesdropping, could achieve better results than they currently do, if they hired more ethnic minorities. Black and Asian intelligence officers complained of a 'racist environment', and the company's 5000-people staff only contains very few Asian and black people. The management itself is even completely 'white'. The company's white culture harms their productivity because a big part of their work is tracking communication between terrorist suspects, which is often in other languages such as Urdu and Arabic. The lack of employees speaking the respective languages has proven to harm efforts in detecting codes and cultural nuances in conversations intercepted by the GCHQ.
My opinion:
It is rather stupid to not employ ethnic minorities in an organisation like the GCHQ, especially since these minorities may have the requested languages as their mother tongue. Also, I believe such an organisation should represent the society well, and having nearly no ethnic minorities in the company, and none whatsoever in the higher ranks, does not represent society well. I believe it would not even be positive discrimination to specifically hire people of a certain ethnic background, considering this background is relevant for the job requirements. Therefore I feel the company should start hiring people based on both background ánd skills, to re-establish a balanced ethnic staff.
Raoul Moat family seeks second postmortem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/11/raoul-moat-family-postmortem-taser
The family of the shooter that was hunted for a week before committing suicide, Raoul Moat, wants a second post-mortem examination because the police report does not mention anything that points to taserwounds, whereas they are sure police officers used stun guns on Moat. Also, Moat's uncle is upset because the police did not allow him to talk to his nephew. The uncle states he was the closest to a father Moat ever had, but the police did not allow him because they were afraid he would be at risk. The uncle feels that his familiar face could just have been the required bit to convince Moat into not committing suicide.
My opinion:
I believe it to be at the very least extremely peculiar, that the reports do not contain any information concerning wounds made by stun guns. It appears as though the police are covering for themselves now, and I think that is not the impression the police ought to aim for. Also, I consider their decision not to allow the uncle near to be simply wrong, as the uncle might have been able to influence his nephew enough to stop him from killing himself. I think the outcome reached now is the worst thinkable for both the police, as they do not come out pretty, and the family, because they may always have the "What if..."-feeling, with his uncle not being allowed to talk to him.
The family of the shooter that was hunted for a week before committing suicide, Raoul Moat, wants a second post-mortem examination because the police report does not mention anything that points to taserwounds, whereas they are sure police officers used stun guns on Moat. Also, Moat's uncle is upset because the police did not allow him to talk to his nephew. The uncle states he was the closest to a father Moat ever had, but the police did not allow him because they were afraid he would be at risk. The uncle feels that his familiar face could just have been the required bit to convince Moat into not committing suicide.
My opinion:
I believe it to be at the very least extremely peculiar, that the reports do not contain any information concerning wounds made by stun guns. It appears as though the police are covering for themselves now, and I think that is not the impression the police ought to aim for. Also, I consider their decision not to allow the uncle near to be simply wrong, as the uncle might have been able to influence his nephew enough to stop him from killing himself. I think the outcome reached now is the worst thinkable for both the police, as they do not come out pretty, and the family, because they may always have the "What if..."-feeling, with his uncle not being allowed to talk to him.
vrijdag 18 juni 2010
The Low Countries' New Low
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/15/the-low-countries-new-low
My opinion:
I think the writer of this article hasn't done her homework. Calling the PvdA socialist is just factually wrong, and I think that strongly devalues the article. Apart from that, I do agree to a certain extent: I also hoped the masses would have shown some disgust, horror or shock at the rise of a party suggesting ethnic registration and promoting censorship by wanting to legally equalise the Quran to Mein Kampf. Also, I think this article partially shows developments throughout Europe and throughout the world after the Freedom Party's rise in recent elections. These developments all indicate the Netherlands' loss of its tolerant, liberal image, which I think is at the very least a pity, but is probably also something we should consider worrisome.
The Low Countries' New Low
This article describes the political developments in both Belgium and the Netherlands, who both had elections only a few days apart, and both had right wing, near-nationalistic victors. In the Netherlands, the Freedom Party had the highest growth. This party is openly anti-Muslim and believes the Netherlands is only for the white Dutch people. Behind them are the anti-EU VVD and the socialist PvdA, says the article. In Belgium, the nationalistic NV-A won the elections in Flanders with the socialists being the largest party in the French-speaking part of Belgium. In neither of the two countries the masses have shown shock after so many people voting for ethnic lines. Both countries, once known as the low countries, are still low according to the writer, but rather low in the writer's opinion.My opinion:
I think the writer of this article hasn't done her homework. Calling the PvdA socialist is just factually wrong, and I think that strongly devalues the article. Apart from that, I do agree to a certain extent: I also hoped the masses would have shown some disgust, horror or shock at the rise of a party suggesting ethnic registration and promoting censorship by wanting to legally equalise the Quran to Mein Kampf. Also, I think this article partially shows developments throughout Europe and throughout the world after the Freedom Party's rise in recent elections. These developments all indicate the Netherlands' loss of its tolerant, liberal image, which I think is at the very least a pity, but is probably also something we should consider worrisome.
Utah firing squad executes death row inmate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/18/firing-squad-executes-death-row-inmate
In Utah, Ronnie Gardner became the first man in 14 years to receive the death penalty through firing squad. He had been on death row for over twenty years after committing several murders. Utah and Oklahoma are the only two American states that still offer the possibility of a firing squad as an alternative for the lethal injection. Gardner's daughter Brandie (33) said her father was in favour of the death penalty, but she opposes it because of her religion. Family members of one of Gardner's victims were present to witness the execution. Another victim's family said the victim would not have wanted this since he had always opposed the death penalty.
My opinion:
I am utterly disgusted after reading this. Especially since the article describes the exact process of the death penalty and therefore of the last few minutes of the life of this man. I do not understand how they can allow people to watch while the verdict is being executed and in my opinion that should be forbidden immediately! Even if they believe someone deserves the death penalty, it still should not be a 'show' for (families of) victims to watch and enjoy. I truly cannot believe this still happens in a world that I considered to be civilised.
Utah firing squad executes death row inmate
In Utah, Ronnie Gardner became the first man in 14 years to receive the death penalty through firing squad. He had been on death row for over twenty years after committing several murders. Utah and Oklahoma are the only two American states that still offer the possibility of a firing squad as an alternative for the lethal injection. Gardner's daughter Brandie (33) said her father was in favour of the death penalty, but she opposes it because of her religion. Family members of one of Gardner's victims were present to witness the execution. Another victim's family said the victim would not have wanted this since he had always opposed the death penalty.
My opinion:
I am utterly disgusted after reading this. Especially since the article describes the exact process of the death penalty and therefore of the last few minutes of the life of this man. I do not understand how they can allow people to watch while the verdict is being executed and in my opinion that should be forbidden immediately! Even if they believe someone deserves the death penalty, it still should not be a 'show' for (families of) victims to watch and enjoy. I truly cannot believe this still happens in a world that I considered to be civilised.
maandag 14 juni 2010
Parent's view on genetic link to autism: 'I don't want it to be eradicated'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/10/autism-parents-view-genetics
Recent studies have shown certain genetic variations to be more common in people with autism, and in this article a parent of two children with autism and one without gives her opinion on the new discoveries. She explains her happiness with the discoveries as they confirm that autism is not caused by neglectful parenting, but also take away the common thought that autism is a purely genetically caused disease. She does, however, not want her children to be cured, even if the current discoveries may lead to such a cure, because she sees autism as a personality trait rather than as a disease.
My opinion:
I am very curious about all the recent developments concerning autism, but do, to an extent, disagree with the parent in this article. I can see why she dislikes calling it a disease, but on the other hand, I think it is very personal if autism is a gift, a disease, or both. For that reason I believe that a cure should be researched, especially since we cannot foresee whether this cure would take away all symptoms of autism, or only the ones considered negative. The creativity she mentions, for example, may also be part of the person's character rather than of the condition. Therefore I do not support her negative attitude towards a cure for autism.
Parent's view on genetic link to autism: 'I don't want it to be eradicated'
Recent studies have shown certain genetic variations to be more common in people with autism, and in this article a parent of two children with autism and one without gives her opinion on the new discoveries. She explains her happiness with the discoveries as they confirm that autism is not caused by neglectful parenting, but also take away the common thought that autism is a purely genetically caused disease. She does, however, not want her children to be cured, even if the current discoveries may lead to such a cure, because she sees autism as a personality trait rather than as a disease.
My opinion:
I am very curious about all the recent developments concerning autism, but do, to an extent, disagree with the parent in this article. I can see why she dislikes calling it a disease, but on the other hand, I think it is very personal if autism is a gift, a disease, or both. For that reason I believe that a cure should be researched, especially since we cannot foresee whether this cure would take away all symptoms of autism, or only the ones considered negative. The creativity she mentions, for example, may also be part of the person's character rather than of the condition. Therefore I do not support her negative attitude towards a cure for autism.
Doctors should warn of IVF defect risk, says report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/13/ivf-malformation-risk-doctors-warn
Geneticists feel that doctors should warn couples that want to try in vitro fertilisation (IVF) about the risk of malformation. This was said today after French scientists published their research into the malformation of IVF-children, showing that approximately 4% of these children has some sort of a malformation. The scientists say these malformations are the result of multiple factors, but age is not one of them. The parents of these malformed children are not older than the average parents. Therefore, the scientists decided more research is needed on several specific aspects of IVF, to explain the malformations.
My opinion:
I agree with the geneticists, I think it is vital to inform couples about such a risk before letting them enter the process of IVF. Even if the risk may seem rather small, it is something couples should be aware of and take into consideration when they decide whether or not to go for IVF. In my opinion it would be completely unethical for a medical professional to keep this information to him- or herself, but I also think it is important to research the exact cause of these malformations so they can possibly be prevented or be linked to specific features of the potential parents.
Doctors should warn of IVF defect risk, says report
Geneticists feel that doctors should warn couples that want to try in vitro fertilisation (IVF) about the risk of malformation. This was said today after French scientists published their research into the malformation of IVF-children, showing that approximately 4% of these children has some sort of a malformation. The scientists say these malformations are the result of multiple factors, but age is not one of them. The parents of these malformed children are not older than the average parents. Therefore, the scientists decided more research is needed on several specific aspects of IVF, to explain the malformations.
My opinion:
I agree with the geneticists, I think it is vital to inform couples about such a risk before letting them enter the process of IVF. Even if the risk may seem rather small, it is something couples should be aware of and take into consideration when they decide whether or not to go for IVF. In my opinion it would be completely unethical for a medical professional to keep this information to him- or herself, but I also think it is important to research the exact cause of these malformations so they can possibly be prevented or be linked to specific features of the potential parents.
woensdag 9 juni 2010
Barack Obama: "BP chief would be fired if he was working for me"
Following the now six week long oil drama near Mexico, American president Obama said he would have fired BP-boss hayward if Hayward had been in his staff. Hayward has had lot of criticism lately, after having lied about how far the oil spread (he claimed it was only on the surface, but the oil has spread until 3300 ft.), saying "The Gulf of Mexico is a really big ocean!" to trivialise the problem and posting "I want my life back!" on his Facebook when several of his employees were killed in the explosion on the oil rig. Obama's remarks are apparently part of the administration's strategy to distance themselves from the oil disaster.
My opinion:
I feel Obama has a point when saying he would have fired the BP-boss, because I feel the man is completely out of line. Complaining he wants his life back when many families just want their father or husband back, joking about the size of the disaster and simply lying about the consequences of the oil in the ocean, are all actions that cannot be allowed in my opinion. I do think, however, that Obama might not have been the right person to say this, as I believe this appears very close to power abuse from President Obama, because he is, after all, the president of the USA, and I think you put quite some pressure on someone if you are the president of the USA and saying someone should be fired. Of course, if this is all part of their strategy, the administration has surely realised this.
My opinion:
I feel Obama has a point when saying he would have fired the BP-boss, because I feel the man is completely out of line. Complaining he wants his life back when many families just want their father or husband back, joking about the size of the disaster and simply lying about the consequences of the oil in the ocean, are all actions that cannot be allowed in my opinion. I do think, however, that Obama might not have been the right person to say this, as I believe this appears very close to power abuse from President Obama, because he is, after all, the president of the USA, and I think you put quite some pressure on someone if you are the president of the USA and saying someone should be fired. Of course, if this is all part of their strategy, the administration has surely realised this.
World Cup 2010: England need Wayne Rooney's short fuse says John Terry
Former England captain John Terry thinks Wayne Rooney's temper will not be a problem during the World Cup. During a warm-up game with a local club, Rooney was sent off for swearing at the referee, Jeff Selogilwe, who warned him not to do that at the World Cup for it could cost him the finals.
Rooney also caused problems at the previous World Cup, when he was sent off in the QF, but Terry believes Rooney has grown up a lot ever since, and that the team could have done with a bit more of that aggression.
Rio Ferdinand, the currently injured England Captain, backed Terry's assessment. He points to Rooney's hugely improved disciplinary record in recent seasons. Other teams in England's group C have already been suggested to target Rooney's suspected temper.
My opinion:
I believe Rooney should calm down a bit more. Swearing at a referee in a warm-up game against some local club is really not necessary, and such behaviour may indeed cost him the finals if he behaves the same at the actual World Cup. Also, I think Rooney's behaviour does not show much respect towards the referees, and I believe that alone is enough reason for him to lose his temper some more. Football players are rolemodels, and Rooney, being one of the England stars, should be aware of that. He should show respect towards the referee to show the little children that look up to him that you should not swear at a referee. Also, I believe his behaviour may be harmful to England's chances in the World Cup.
Rooney also caused problems at the previous World Cup, when he was sent off in the QF, but Terry believes Rooney has grown up a lot ever since, and that the team could have done with a bit more of that aggression.
Rio Ferdinand, the currently injured England Captain, backed Terry's assessment. He points to Rooney's hugely improved disciplinary record in recent seasons. Other teams in England's group C have already been suggested to target Rooney's suspected temper.
My opinion:
I believe Rooney should calm down a bit more. Swearing at a referee in a warm-up game against some local club is really not necessary, and such behaviour may indeed cost him the finals if he behaves the same at the actual World Cup. Also, I think Rooney's behaviour does not show much respect towards the referees, and I believe that alone is enough reason for him to lose his temper some more. Football players are rolemodels, and Rooney, being one of the England stars, should be aware of that. He should show respect towards the referee to show the little children that look up to him that you should not swear at a referee. Also, I believe his behaviour may be harmful to England's chances in the World Cup.
zondag 18 april 2010
Blog Article on: “Are ‘smart drugs’ safe for students?”
Article
Summary:
More and more students use smart drugs these days to get through university. Medication developed for people suffering from narcolepsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are being used by students to be able to get through lectures when hung-over, to be able to do everything in their very busy timetable or to study all night for a test. The students believe they need the pills and that it’s no cheating because the pills are just like using coffee. They get the pills through Google and online pharmacies. Universities UK (the body representing the heads of British universities) has grave concerns about the drug use because it poses great health risks. Barbara Sahakian, professor of clinical neuropsychology at Cambridge University’s psychiatry department, warned that the use of smart drugs has enormous implications and that universities must act on them.
My opinion:
I believe the use of smart drugs by students is something universities should be very worried about, because the consequences of using medication such as modafinil and Ritalin are often unclear to the students. They do not have knowledge about the risk of addiction, about the possible side-effects, about whether their personal health can be a problem when using these drugs, etc. In short, I just believe no-one should use these drugs when they do not have a prescription from their GP or psychiatrist, because without consulting a medical specialist, I believe one behaves very irresponsible and has a high risk of medical problems. Out of personal experience, I know Ritalin can have pretty severe side-effects, and I was flabbergasted to find out people actually use that without prescription and without consulting a medical specialist.
Summary:
More and more students use smart drugs these days to get through university. Medication developed for people suffering from narcolepsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are being used by students to be able to get through lectures when hung-over, to be able to do everything in their very busy timetable or to study all night for a test. The students believe they need the pills and that it’s no cheating because the pills are just like using coffee. They get the pills through Google and online pharmacies. Universities UK (the body representing the heads of British universities) has grave concerns about the drug use because it poses great health risks. Barbara Sahakian, professor of clinical neuropsychology at Cambridge University’s psychiatry department, warned that the use of smart drugs has enormous implications and that universities must act on them.
My opinion:
I believe the use of smart drugs by students is something universities should be very worried about, because the consequences of using medication such as modafinil and Ritalin are often unclear to the students. They do not have knowledge about the risk of addiction, about the possible side-effects, about whether their personal health can be a problem when using these drugs, etc. In short, I just believe no-one should use these drugs when they do not have a prescription from their GP or psychiatrist, because without consulting a medical specialist, I believe one behaves very irresponsible and has a high risk of medical problems. Out of personal experience, I know Ritalin can have pretty severe side-effects, and I was flabbergasted to find out people actually use that without prescription and without consulting a medical specialist.
maandag 12 april 2010
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)