13 Reasons Why "not helpful", suicide prevention summit told

The controversial new Netflix series 13 Reasons Why is “not helpful”, says Australia’s national suicide prevention charity as it strives to reach a cross-sector response to the issue.

Representatives from industries including finance, agribusiness, retail and sport joined suicide prevention experts and academics for the inaugural National Stop Suicide Summit in Sydney on Monday, hosted by Lifeline Australia.

How do you attack the loneliness of modern life that makes people feel this way?

Pete Shmigel, Lifeline

The chief executive of Lifeline, Pete Shmigel, said suicide was a society-wide problem businesses needed to respond to, not just the mental health sector.

Suicide remains the leading cause of death for Australians aged between 15 and 44, with 3,027 deaths in 2015. The overall rate that year was 12.6 per 100,000: the highest rate in more than 10 years.

Suicide was particularly prevalent within male-dominated industries – blue-collar jobs, such as in construction and mining, featured heavily, said Shmigel – as well as those that granted access to the means of suicide, such as medicine.

“If you’ve got access to highly potent, dangerous drugs, you’re going to have a higher rate.”

The issue could not be addressed by the health system alone. “Basically we’re asking: how do you attack the loneliness of modern life that makes people feel this way?”

That presented opportunities for Lifeline Australia and other charities to collaborate with the private sector in suicide prevention, Shmigel said.

Twitter was sharing its data relevant to suicide – “times of day, trigger points, key vocabulary” – with the Black Dog Institute, a not-for-profit facility for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mood disorders and affiliated with the University of New South Wales.

The financial sector had insight into how debt might factor into suicide risk too, he said. “These people have a wealth of data that we think can empower us in terms of suicide prevention.”

Depictions and discussion of suicide could help when part of the problem was that it was taboo to talk about.

“That’s the fine balance: reporting about suicide as a theme, as a topic, as an experience, to illustrate that hundreds of thousands of people go through [thoughts of suicide] every year, but only 3,000 die by it.

“I think part of the narrative around suicide has to be that … most get through it and go on to live positive and productive lives; let’s share that side of the story.”

Shmigel expressed concern that 13 Reasons Why ran the risk of presenting suicide as a “legitimate choice”, and crossed a line in its detailed depiction of means.

“Once you start talking about means, that gets very dangerous. People who are susceptible, that’s the one situation where you can tip them a bit.

“In this case, 13 Reasons Why has gone over that line, which is not helpful.”

Shmigel also had reservations about the effectiveness of news reports that skirted around suicide deaths, citing “no suspicious circumstances”.

“I for one don’t know if that’s helpful. If we continue to communicate in these secret codes about suicide, we continue to perpetuate some of the shame.”

Honesty and openness was key, said Shmigel, when thoughts of suicide seemed to be “part of the human condition”.

“These thoughts, this behaviour, affect hundreds of thousands of people; it’s not necessarily because you’re crazy or you’re unwell … We need to put it into context and say ‘I’ve had these thoughts too’.

“It happens. We get down. It’s kind of in the nature of how our brains work, and most of us get through it.”

• Readers seeking support and information about suicide prevention can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14; Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467; MensLine Australia 1300 78 99 78; Multicultural Mental Health Australia www.mmha.org.au; Local Aboriginal Medical Service available from www.vibe.com.au

13 Reasons Why "not helpful", suicide prevention summit told

Children in UK mental health hospitals "not improving", parents say

More than half of parents with children in mental health hospitals do not feel their condition has improved as a result of treatment, while nearly a quarter say it has actually deteriorated, according to a survey.

The research was based on responses from 448 parents whose children have been in mental health hospitals in England over the last five years.

The study, carried out by the children’s mental health charity YoungMinds and the National Autistic Society, found that 54% of parents said they had seen no improvement, while 24% said their offspring’s mental health had got worse.

A further 44% revealed they felt unable to challenge decisions about their child’s treatment and a third said they were not consulted about decisions regarding medication.

Sarah Brennan, the chief executive of YoungMinds, said it was deeply alarming that so many parents felt angry and frustrated about their child’s care.

Just more than half of parents surveyed said they lacked confidence their child was receiving the appropriate care and 44% claimed they could not visit their child as often as they would like because of the distance or travel time.

Brennan said: “In the worst cases, young people can be trapped in inappropriate care for years with [their] mental health deteriorating while their parents desperately try to find a way to get them home.”

“That’s why its crucial that young people and their families have clear and enforceable rights that put that young person’s needs at the centre of their care and treatment.”

The two charities have launched a campaign called Always and a petition calling on the government to strengthen and enforce the rights of young people in mental health hospitals.

The campaign is based on the the Always Charter, which sets out 12 rights to which young people in inpatient units and their families are entitled.

These include being fully involved in decisions about the care and treatment they receive, and being treated and supported as close to home as possible.

The charter also states young people should always be “treated with dignity and respect, including avoiding the use of restraint (including chemical restraint), isolation and seclusion wherever possible”.

Mark Lever, chief executive of the National Autistic Society, said families should be fully involved in decisions about the care of their loved ones, adding: “Our joint survey with YoungMinds suggests that many parents of children and young people in mental health inpatient units feel powerless.”

He went on: “This is putting an unfair strain on families who are often already under almost unimaginable pressure. The government must address this unacceptable situation by strengthening the rights and voices of children and their parents.”

He added: “Care and support should always be built around each child, including those on the autism spectrum, and be as close to home as possible.”

All the children of the parents polled for the joint survey have been in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Camhs) tier-4 units.

There are about 1,300 Camhs tier-4 beds in England, which deliver specialist care and treatment to young people with severe or complex mental disorders.

Services are provided for youngsters aged between 13 and 18 with a range of conditions including depression, psychoses, eating disorders and severe anxiety disorder, associated with significant impairment or significant risk to themselves.

• For more information about the Always campaign and charter, and to sign the petition, visit https://act.youngminds.org.uk/always

Children in UK mental health hospitals "not improving", parents say

Tony Blair"s Brexit speech "not helpful", says Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has criticised Tony Blair’s call for pro-Europeans to form a new cross-party movement to oppose Brexit, urging the former prime minister to “respect the result” of the referendum and to put his energy towards building relations in Europe.

Corbyn, who was questioned on the comments after addressing Labour’s local government conference at Warwick University, said: “Well, it’s not helpful. I would ask those to think about this – the referendum gave a result, gave a very clear decision on this, and we have to respect that decision, that’s why we didn’t block article 50.

“But we are going to be part of all this campaigning, all these negotiations about the kind of relationship we have in Europe in the future.. The referendum happened, let’s respect the result. Democracy happened, respect the result.”

Earlier Corbyn said people were dying at the hands of the government’s austerity policies in a scathing attack on the prime minister days before two crucial byelections.

The Labour leader blamed ministers for an “emergency” in local services and a social care crisis caused by “disgraceful neglect” as he urged voters in Copeland and Stoke-on-Trent to “send a message” to Theresa May on 23 February that they had had enough of cuts.

In a speech to Labour councillors at Warwick University, Corbyn said: “We have a state of emergency in our social care system and the worst crisis in the history of our NHS.”

He added that the situation in social care was an “absolute scandal that leaves 1.2 million elderly people without the care they need”.

Corbyn cited a report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that said the crisis was linked to 30,000 excess deaths in 2015. “People are dying because of the choices made by this government,” he said. “Councils are at breaking point on social care. Our social care system has been privatised, outsourced and cut. It has dehumanised our parents, grandparents and neighbours.”

Corbyn vowed a Labour government would provide the NHS and social care with adequate funds while accusing May of leading a government that gives billions away in tax breaks to big business and the richest in society while cutting services for the most vulnerable.

He said: “It is this callousness, even brutality, that has put local services in a state of emergency.”

The twin byelections, caused by the resignation of Labour MPs Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt, represent Corbyn’s toughest electoral challenge yet. The Conservatives are hoping to win Copeland from Labour, who are trailing in the polls. Corbyn’s past opposition to nuclear power is viewed with suspicion among many voters in the Cumbrian constituency, which is economically reliant on the Sellafield nuclear processing facility.

The party’s battle to retain the two seats suffered a further blow after Corbyn’s campaigns chief, Simon Fletcher, quit on Friday over an apparent clash with Labour’s inner team over the direction of the party.

The sudden resignation of one of his closest aides follows the resignations of four shadow cabinet members over Corbyn’s support for the article 50 bill.

Corbyn said on Saturday that Fletcher would continue working with Labour. “Simon and I are great friends and will remain great friends. We had a good chat last night. I’ve known Simon for 25 years, he’s a great friend of mind and he is going to do other things, but will continue working with us.”

In Stoke, which voted strongly in favour of Brexit in last year’s referendum, the main challenge is expected to come from Ukip, where party leader Paul Nuttall is standing.

Corbyn, who is expected to campaign in the constituency on Saturday, claimed Labour would “defeat Ukip’s politics of hate”.

Tony Blair"s Brexit speech "not helpful", says Jeremy Corbyn

TV ad showing Santa with dementia "not too upsetting for children"

A TV campaign that shows Santa forgetting Christmas after developing dementia has been cleared by the ad watchdog following complaints it was offensive and could distress children.

The festive campaign, called Santa Forgot, was run by the charity Alzheimer’s Research UK to raise awareness of dementia and help boost donations.

The two-minute clip, narrated by Stephen Fry and animated by Aardman, the studio behind Wallace and Gromit, tells the story of a girl called Freya who asks her father about Santa, who no longer delivers presents because he has dementia.

In the ad the girl goes to the North Pole to save Father Christmas, offering support and encouraging his redundant elves to become researchers to find a way to cure the disease.

Three dozen viewers contacted the Advertising Standards Authority to complain that showing Santa having Alzheimer’s disease was offensive, could cause distress to children and questioned whether it should have been allowed to run when young viewers might see it.

Tim Parry, a director at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said the ad targeted adults and carried an “ex-kids” scheduling restriction, meaning it did not air in programmes when young children were likely to be watching.

It was only broadcast once before 7.30pm in an episode of Emmerdale on ITV because it involved a serious dementia storyline involving a main character.

Parry defended the use of such a hard-hitting strategy to get the charity’s message across to viewers.

“Our aim was to raise awareness that the diseases that cause dementia strike indiscriminately,” he said. “If we are to fight the misconceptions about dementia that still persist in society, we have to challenge them head-on.”

In its ruling, the ASA admitted that the ad might upset some viewers, with the depiction of Santa potentially likely to “cause discomfort to some younger children”.

However, the ad watchdog said the issue of dementia had been handled “sensitively” and the sad story of Santa was told in a “gentle, non-graphic way with a generally positive ending”.

The ASA’s investigation found the campaign did not breach the UK advertising code relating to harm and offence, children and scheduling.

The use of shock advertising is a common tactic used by charities to promote their cause and galvanise an often apathetic public into donating money.

A spokesman for the ASA said that the watchdog had traditionally granted more leeway to public service and charity ads in relation to UK ad code rules because of the importance of the issues about which they are trying to raise awareness.

In 2015, the ASA received 1,752 complaints about 799 ads from what it terms the “non-commercial” sector, which includes charity advertising. This is from a total of 30,000 complaints about 20,000 ads in 2015.

The ASA has previously investigated whether it was too lenient in letting charity and public service advertisers get away with shock tactics.

It moved to examine its policy after participants in a survey it conducted complained that some ads went too far with deliberately distressing content to make people feel upset or guilty, particularly those targeting children’s TV channels.

The ad watchdog’s investigation into its policy concluded that it was not being overly lenient, but it did introduce more thorough checks of charity and public service ads that receive complaints.

TV ad showing Santa with dementia "not too upsetting for children"

Millions of UK asthma sufferers "not receiving basic levels of care"

Millions of asthma patients are not receiving basic levels of care to keep their condition in check, a charity has warned.

Two-thirds of sufferers are not being given fundamental care to manage their condition, Asthma UK said. This is about 3.6 million people across the UK.

Full provision of this basic care would “reduce the impact of asthma, reduce hospital admissions and improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people”, according to a new report by the charity.

Basic care includes having an appropriate asthma review at least once a year – or more often for severe cases and children – being on the right medication and knowing how to use it, and having a written asthma action plan.

The annual asthma survey, based on responses from 4,650 patients from around the UK, found a variation in the proportion of people receiving basic care across the country, with some areas “lagging behind others”.

Patients in Northern Ireland appeared to get the best basic care, with 47.6% receiving all elements of recommended care.

The lowest proportion was in London, where just 27.5% of patients received this level of care.

The report’s authors said it was not just this basic care that was “failing people with asthma”. The report stated that seven out of 10 patients who required hospital care or out-of-hours treatment did not have a follow-up appointment.

The authors said: “Correct discharge arrangements after a hospital stay for asthma saves lives, and this is a particularly worrying finding.”

There are about 5.4 million people with asthma in the UK. In 2015, 1,468 people died from the condition – the highest number for more than a decade. The charity said two-thirds of asthma deaths were preventable with the right basic care.

“It is worrying that basic care is not being delivered on a consistent basis because every person with asthma should be receiving this care,” said the charity’s clinical lead, Dr Andy Whittamore.

Kay Boycott, chief executive of Asthma UK, said: “With the 2014 national review of asthma deaths reporting two out of three asthma deaths are preventable with good basic care, it is hugely disappointing that the latest Asthma UK care survey shows little has changed since that damning report.

“It is clear that expecting old ways to tackle long-standing problems won’t work. We must take a bold new approach and take advantage of new asthma digital health solutions to transform the way asthma care is delivered and support self-management.

“Digital asthma action plans, smart inhalers and automated GP alerts are just some of the ways asthma care could be brought up to date and help reduce the risk of potentially fatal asthma attacks.”

The proportion of patients in each region who received all elements of basic asthma care, according to Asthma UK

East Midlands: 33.5%

East of England: 30.4%

London: 27.5%

North-east: 38.5%

North-west: 34.5%

Northern Ireland: 47.6%

Scotland: 41.1%

South-east: 33.2%

South-west: 34.2%

Wales: 32.2%

West Midlands: 32.2%

Yorkshire and the Humber: 28.1%

Millions of UK asthma sufferers "not receiving basic levels of care"

Patient safety at risk because language tests for medics "not stringent enough"

Patient safety could be at risk because doctors, nurses and dentists from elsewhere in Europe are not facing stringent enough language tests, leading medics have said.

In only one year, 29 medics from the European Economic Area faced allegations of “inadequate knowledge of English language”, according to data obtained by the Royal College of Surgeons.

By contrast, only 10 doctors from outside the EEA faced the same accusations during 2014/15, the figures obtained by the RCS from the General Medical Council show.

Under current EU rules, doctors coming to Britain from the EEA only have to show they have general English language skills. Those arriving from further afield have to prove their language abilities in a clinical context – showing they can talk fluently about symptoms and equipment. Brexit negotiations pose an “excellent opportunity” to ensure language checks are up to scratch, the RCS said.

Professor Nigel Hunt, dean of the faculty of dental surgery at the RCS, said: “The NHS would struggle to provide care in hospitals, clinics and dental practices without the very skilled doctors, dentists and nurses that come from both the EU and non-EU countries.

“It’s absolutely vital that the government find ways to ensure they can remain working in the NHS post-Brexit. That said it’s unquestionable that such staff should be able to communicate clearly with patients in English about their clinical problems, illnesses and treatment.

“While the professional regulators are able to require proof of the clinical language skills of non-EU applicants, the same checks do not apply to EEA applicants and our fear is that this could be putting patients at risk. We want the same rules to apply to all non-UK professionals, regardless of where in the world they come from.”

During 2014/15, 145 allegations were made about poor communication by dentists from the EEA compared with 27 about dentists from the rest of the world, according to data from a freedom of information request to the General Dental Council by the RCS.

A new briefing paper from the faculty of dental surgery at the RCS warns that despite attempts to improve language checks, EU law still prevents regulators from systematically testing EEA applicants’ language skills in a clinical setting, including on medical terms, ensuring consent, describing a procedure and possible side-effects.

A Department of Health spokesman said: “Patient safety is of the utmost importance, and we expect all healthcare professionals working in the UK to have a good command of the English language.

“That is why we have tough rules, allowing the GMC and individual employers to test employees at and beyond the initial point of employment – and these cases represent just 0.002% of NHS staff.”

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the General Medical Council, said: “Our language requirements are among the toughest in the world, and we keep them under regular review to make sure they continue to be effective.

“We have twice raised the standard in recent years and have secured a change in the law to allow us to take action against doctors who cannot communicate effectively.

“In the past we were not able to check doctors from Europe. Now we can and the difference is clear – this has been a huge step forward for patient safety. Since 2014 nearly 1,100 doctors from Europe have not met our English language requirements and cannot therefore practise in the UK.

“We have always argued that we should have the right to test the competence of European doctors as well as language and that remains our position.”

Patient safety at risk because language tests for medics "not stringent enough"

David Cameron "not convinced" over assisted dying bill

The issue was raised by during prime minister’s questions ahead of the second reading of Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill. Photograph: PA

David Cameron has said he is worried about moves to legalise euthanasia although he would be happy for the Commons to debate the issue of assisted dying.

Speaking ahead of a controversial debate on the issue in the House of Lords, the prime minister said he was “not convinced that further steps need to be taken” by parliament on the issue.

The issue was raised by Sir Richard Ottaway during prime minister’s questions ahead of the second reading of Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill, which would allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose to terminally ill patients judged to have less than six months to live.

“In the recent case of [Tony] Nicklinson on the question of assisted dying, Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, said that parliament now had the opportunity to consider reform of the law in the knowledge that if parliament doesn’t act, the courts may. This could raise serious constitutional issues,” Ottoway said.

“Does he agree that whatever your views on the subject, the other place is to be commended for having a debate, but what the public really want is a debate in this house?”

Cameron suggested William Hague, the new leader of the House of Commons, would think about allowing MPs to talk about the issue as well.

“I am very happy for a debate to be held here and of course there are now opportunities for backbenchers to hold debates in the chamber and I am sure the new leader of the House of Commons who I am sure we all want to welcome to his place, will be listening carefully to that request,” he said.

“For myself I am not convinced that further steps need to be taken, I worry about legalising euthanasia and people might be being pushed into things that they don’t actually want for themselves, but by all means let’s have the debate.”

Former archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has said he changed his mind on the issue of assisted dying, after considering cases like that of locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson and “the reality of needless suffering”.

However, the church is officially opposed to the idea and Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, has spoken strongly against it.

On Tuesday, leading doctors called for terminally ill patients who are suffering “unendurably” to be able to end their lives with doctors’ help, in an 11th hour attempt to persuade the Lords to back such plans.

Twenty seven senior figures, including 11 present or former presidents of royal medical colleges and a former NHS medical director, wrote to every peer urging them to back the bid to legalise assisted dying.

David Cameron "not convinced" over assisted dying bill

David Cameron "not convinced" in excess of assisted dying bill

The issue was raised by during prime minister’s questions ahead of the second reading of Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill. Photograph: PA

David Cameron has said he is worried about moves to legalise euthanasia although he would be happy for the Commons to debate the issue of assisted dying.

Speaking ahead of a controversial debate on the issue in the House of Lords, the prime minister said he was “not convinced that further steps need to be taken” by parliament on the issue.

The issue was raised by Sir Richard Ottaway during prime minister’s questions ahead of the second reading of Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill, which would allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose to terminally ill patients judged to have less than six months to live.

“In the recent case of [Tony] Nicklinson on the question of assisted dying, Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, said that parliament now had the opportunity to consider reform of the law in the knowledge that if parliament doesn’t act, the courts may. This could raise serious constitutional issues,” Ottoway said.

“Does he agree that whatever your views on the subject, the other place is to be commended for having a debate, but what the public really want is a debate in this house?”

Cameron suggested William Hague, the new leader of the House of Commons, would think about allowing MPs to talk about the issue as well.

“I am very happy for a debate to be held here and of course there are now opportunities for backbenchers to hold debates in the chamber and I am sure the new leader of the House of Commons who I am sure we all want to welcome to his place, will be listening carefully to that request,” he said.

“For myself I am not convinced that further steps need to be taken, I worry about legalising euthanasia and people might be being pushed into things that they don’t actually want for themselves, but by all means let’s have the debate.”

Former archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has said he changed his mind on the issue of assisted dying, after considering cases like that of locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson and “the reality of needless suffering”.

However, the church is officially opposed to the idea and Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, has spoken strongly against it.

On Tuesday, leading doctors called for terminally ill patients who are suffering “unendurably” to be able to end their lives with doctors’ help, in an 11th hour attempt to persuade the Lords to back such plans.

Twenty seven senior figures, including 11 present or former presidents of royal medical colleges and a former NHS medical director, wrote to every peer urging them to back the bid to legalise assisted dying.

David Cameron "not convinced" in excess of assisted dying bill

Half of physician whistle-blowers "not listened to"

The findings display virtually a third are preparing to perform abroad, three quarters are doing extra, unpaid perform in buy to deliver acceptable patient care and that one half of physicians who had raised concerns about care felt they had not been listened to.

It comes only days soon after an inquiry into the treatment method of whistle-blowers was announced by the Department of Overall health.

Robert Francis QC, who chaired the inquiry into catastrophic failures as Mid Staffordshire NHS Believe in, will lead the new probe following staff explained there was even now a culture of fear.

Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA Council stated: “We’re presently seeing the impact of a recruitment and retention crisis on the NHS in the type of queues in our GPs surgeries and emergency departments, so it really is a trigger for genuine concern that practically a third of physicians are organizing on leaving the NHS to function abroad.

“This confirms what we hear around us all the time, that the government is steadily turning the NHS into a place where doctors do not want to perform, by cutting its resources, devaluing medical professionals and cheapening the support to patients.”

He warned that with increasing demand from an ageing population much more medical doctors have been essential not fewer.

Dr Porter extra: “Unless the government will take urgent action to handle the workload pressures dealing with medical professionals, which are also a barrier to delivering the very best attainable patient care, then we will get rid of a generation of youthful medical professionals to health companies overseas.

“Unmanageable workloads, particularly in basic practice and emergency medication, collectively with the steady chipping away of spend and circumstances are eroding even younger doctors’ morale and producing the NHS a less and significantly less eye-catching area to perform.

“This is specially sad provided doctors say functioning with sufferers is the ideal part of their work and not a single person surveyed regretted turning into a doctor.”

A Department of Well being spokesman stated: “We have come a lengthy way because the tragic events at Mid Staffordshire, nevertheless we nonetheless hear of circumstances the place NHS staff who have raised considerations about safety tell us they have been ignored. That is why we have asked Sir Robert Francis QC to lead an independent assessment into how we protect NHS employees who communicate out and produce a much more open culture.

“Doctors are operating incredibly tough and carry on to give substantial good quality care in the face of growing demand. We want to do every thing we can to help them to offer safer care for individuals.”

He additional that despite the fact that some physicians want to perform abroad there are 7,000 much more medical doctors operating in the NHS than in 2010 and there has often be a movement in and out of the nation of healthcare personnel.

He stated: “The majority return to perform for our NHS, and bring back with them expertise that will advantage British patients.”

Half of physician whistle-blowers "not listened to"

Disease professionals warns United kingdom defences "not match for purpose"

The Department of Health has approved proposals from the Health Research Authority to streamline clinical trials, but experts have argued that more work is needed within the NHS to fast-track trials in an emergency.

They say that an emerging infection like bird flu, Sars or pandemic flu can spread across Britain and burn itself out within eight weeks.

But doctors hoping to test drugs or other treatments for patients can face delays of more than a year before they can recruit a single case to a trial.

It means doctors have little hope of learning which treatments are effective during an outbreak because patients will have recovered or died before the trial can start.

Calling for an overhaul, Farrar said the emergency trials needed to start within 24 hours of an epidemic emerging.

“Getting this information early on is critical to inform what we do and how we treat patients. Without it we are completely in the dark,” he said.

Pandemic flu is regarded as the most serious emergency risk that Britain faces, but other infections, including drug-resistant diseases, are also a serious threat.

Clinical trials need approval from the NHS and other bodies before doctors can recruit patients, but the process faces delays at almost every stage.

Researchers must apply for grants, submit study protocols and patient consent forms, gain ethical approval, find hospitals with the right facilities, equipment, supplies, staff and patients and then sign legal agreements with them all.

The long-winded process is designed to be thorough to protect patients and hospitals from litigation. Trials can go seriously wrong, as happened in 2006 when six young men nearly died in a drug trial at Northwick Park hospital in north London.

The 2002 Sars pandemic killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000 but had the virus not been contained it could have killed far more, experts said.

The reason the death toll was not higher was that patients were most infectious when they were most sick, so isolating the ill stopped the virus spreading.

“There is no doubt we were very lucky with Sars,” said Farrar. “But nobody knows where it has gone and we don’t have a vaccine. If it were to come back tomorrow and I got infected, the doctor treating me wouldn’t have a clue which drug, if any, to give me.”

A 2011 report from the Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) raised major concerns about delays to clinical trials. It quoted Cancer Research UK data that found the typical time taken to launch a trial and treat the first patient was 621 days.

Sir Michael Rawlins, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, who chaired the report, said progress was disappointing. “It’s going in the right direction, but it’s painfully slow,” he told the newspaper.

The Health Research Authority was set up in response to the AMS report to streamline approval times. It means a simple trial could be approved within 25 days but the authority is aiming to approve emergency trials within 24 hours.

Farrar said he wanted more trials pre-approved so that doctors can start emergency tests in patients the moment an outbreak is identified.

“We need generic protocols which have been pre-approved by ethics committees and institutions at a national level,” he told the newspaper.

“All the information, from what samples to take to the forms we’d record patient data on, would be openly available. Then, in an emergency, a group that has worked on the top three or four interventions can start enrolling patients within 24 hours.

“There are groups trying to address this, but it’s nowhere near there yet.”

Disease professionals warns United kingdom defences "not match for purpose"

ADHD "not a actual disease", neuroscientist claims

Prescriptions for the medicines, this kind of as Ritalin, have risen from 420,000 in 2007 to 657,000 in 2012 – an improve of 56 per cent.

ADHD “is best considered of as a description,” he mentioned. “If you look at how you end up with that label, it is impressive due to the fact any 1 of us at any given time would fit at least a couple of people criteria.”

Dr Perry’s operate on the effects of neglect on children’s brains has previously been highlighted by Mr Duncan Smith, who claimed in 2010 that kids brought up in broken homes could create smaller sized brains.

But the scientists claimed the then-Conservative social policy tsar had “significantly misrepresented” and “distorted” his work, which focused on youngsters suffering from extreme varieties of abuse.

ADHD "not a actual disease", neuroscientist claims

eight Causes Why In March N.C.A.A. Stands For "Not Caring About Athletes"

1.  This month, the NCAA will make $ 770 Million in tv revenues from internet hosting its yearly men’s basketball tournament.  NCAA members will hold all of this cash for themselves.  The pupil-athletes will be paid nothing.

two.  If school athletes had been allowed to unionize, men’s university basketball gamers could reasonably assume to earn a number of hundred thousand bucks for enjoying in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.  Therefore, the NCAA has petitioned the Nationwide Labor Relations Board to deny pupil-athletes’ right to unionize.

3.  Nevertheless even though the NCAA has argued that its athletes are foremost college students and not ‘employees,’ the NCAA still schedules its early round men’s tournament basketball games on Thursdays and Fridays during the day– days that conflict with traditional students’ academic obligations.

four.  Even a lot more disturbingly, this year the NCAA once once more scheduled its national championship game on a Monday night.  This maximizes the association’s television revenues, but needlessly can make the finalist teams miss two extra days of class.

School sports activities announcers such as Dick Vitale tend to search at the NCAA’s business practices through rose colored glasses.   (Photograph credit: Dave Hogg)

five.  In numerous instances, over the program the an total season the journey to the NCAA men’s basketball championship calls for student-athletes to miss one particular-quarter of all spring class days fully for basketball purposes.

6.  The 2014 NCAA Tournament schedule even calls for further missed class days purely for seeding motives.  For example, even even though Harvard University is based on the East Coast, the crew is currently being asked to travel to Spokane, WA for its 1st-round game — a game that will force that group to miss Wednesday, Thursday and perhaps Friday classes of this week.

seven.  Even although NCAA member schools regularly preach the dangers of pupil-athletes utilizing alcohol, they are so ‘drunk’ for income that they even let beer companies to market for the duration of the NCAA tournament.  Dry campus, so what?  Utilizing pupil-athletes to indirectly peddle beer is extremely profitable.

eight.  And worst of all …. the NCAA utilizes our loyal viewership of the tournament to preach its unique vision of “amateurism” and to lull several of us into the false belief that the NCAA’s several practices that restrain wage in the market for college athlete labor providers actually are in place for the pupil-athletes’ own benefit, and not as a way to maximize individual member schools’ income.

____________________________

Marc Edelman is an Associate Professor of Law at the City University of New York’s Baruch College, Zicklin College of Enterprise, where he has published a lot more than 25 law evaluation articles on sports activities law issues.  His most latest posts such as “A Brief Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law” and “The Long term of Amateurism after Antitrust Scrutiny.”

eight Causes Why In March N.C.A.A. Stands For "Not Caring About Athletes"

This Weblog Is "Not Suitable For Dissemination By means of The Internet"

The editors of the prestigious European Heart Journal have determined that this website, or at least one latest submit, “is “not ideal for dissemination through the internet.”

I beg to differ.

In an EHJ editorial, Is the panic about beta-blockers in perioperative care justified?, the authors, the editors of the journal, led by editor-in-chief Thomas Lüscher, repeatedly criticize a submit I wrote a few weeks ago with an intentionally provocative headline, “Medication Or Mass Murder? Guideline Primarily based on Discredited Analysis Might Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Above The Final 5 Years.”

Their editorial starts:

Controversial problems require correct discussion, the two in science and clinical medication. Occasionally the interpretation of the offered data is complicated and not suitable for dissemination by way of the net.one

That reference at the finish refers to my earlier report. They go on to think about the unfavorable results of my blog, writing that the “the feasible consequences… grew virtually exponentially” right after it was published. But they never ever spell out what individuals consequences actually were.

The exact same editors also unpublished (retracted? withdrew? disappeared?) an EHJ post by Cole and Francis that had been the topic of my site post. That article talked about the feasible damage induced by medical professionals in Europe following recommendations that have been partly based on discredited studies from the disgraced Dutch researcher Don Poldermans.  The new EHJ editorial contains a comprehensive rebuttal of the Cole and Francis article. The astonishing thing right here is that  they have published a substantial response to the Cole and Francis write-up, but simply because the authentic post has been withdrawn it is, rather decidedly, a one particular-sided debate.  EHJ readers are entirely unable to make any independent judgement for themselves about this problem.

This is constant with the paternalistic tone of the editorial. The editors adopt the tone of fathers who know greatest, telling their kids what they can read through and what they should believe and feel. Of program, they are very confident that they are performing this for the standard good: the editorial office, they publish, was “aware of its obligation and reacted accordingly.”

But since they really do not spell out the negative consequences of the write-up it is impossible to assess the dangers versus the rewards of publication. Could it be that the only actual consequences have been that they have been embarrassed by an inconvenient or controversial viewpoint?

And, I wonder, exactly where was their decisive action when this affair had its actual origins, a number of years in the past when the Poldermans scandal 1st emerged? The EHJ editors withdrew the Cole and Francis report only hours following it 1st appeared. But when the Poldermans affair 1st broke there was no comparable instant action. It would look that they are a lot more concerned by poor PR than by poor science or even possibly dangerous medication.

I will not now evaluation all the  complicated concerns involved in this controversy. Like others I will be interested to read through the revised edition of the Cole and Francis post, if it is ever published. But for now I stand by my earlier post, which initially ended with this explanation for its provocative title:

…there are very good reasons to think that this kind of provocation is essential. There is, it has now turn into clear, a general lack of concern and response to proof of scientific fraud and misconduct. Journal editors, deans, division chairs, and others seem much more concerned with guarding the track record of their respective institutions than aggressively upholding the integrity of science and investigation. Of program, defending science and keeping the track record of an institution need to not be opposing alternatives. But considering that they are, possibly a little provocation is in order.

A single last note, for connoisseurs of scandal. It seems from the editorial that the EHJ editor-in-chief has actually apologized to Poldermans for the harsh criticism his research, and the ESC tips derived from that study, acquired in the disappeared Cole and Francis post:

…the Editor-in-Chief informed the writer of 1 of the beta-blocker trials, who was heavily criticized in the post, that the European Heart Journal does not support the conclusions of this inadvertently published function.

Censorship (Photograph credit: IsaacMao)

This Weblog Is "Not Suitable For Dissemination By means of The Internet"

Diabetes sufferers who smoke "not obtaining appropriate treatment"

Diabetes United kingdom says smokers with the ailment ought to be offered help to quit as quickly as attainable. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

Many people with diabetes who smoke are not being offered the assist they need to quit the habit even even though it can be particularly dangerous to individuals with the ailment, a charity claimed.

Diabetes Uk said the assistance accessible was poor despite the truth that each and every particular person with diabetes was supposed to have their smoking status recorded at their annual review, which should kickstart the process of assisting them give up.

The charity’s annual survey identified that 45% of smokers have been offered assistance and advice on providing up over the earlier 12 months.

It stated the quantity of smokers who finished the survey – 166 out of one,643 – was not adequate to be confident it presented an correct reflection but it supported anecdotal evidence.

“Smoking significantly increases chance of a variety of situations, including cancer and heart disease, and so is very harmful regardless of whether you have diabetes or not,” mentioned Diabetes United kingdom chief executive Barbara Young.

“But because diabetes puts a strain on the circulatory technique and smoking adds to that strain, smoking is even worse for you if you have the issue.

“Offered this, it is crucial that healthcare professionals make certain the yearly conversation they have with individuals with diabetes about smoking as element of their care planning evaluation is the commence of a approach of supporting smokers to give up.

“Delivering details about, and accessibility to, the diverse techniques to aid individuals give up smoking is an crucial element of enhancing assistance for men and women with diabetes.”

As well as calling on GPs to do a lot more, the charity is urging men and women with diabetes who smoke to make a resolution to quit in 2014.

There are about 3.8 million individuals with diabetes in the Uk and one in 6 of them are smokers. The amount of men and women with the ailment is predicted to rise to five million by 2025.

Professor Kevin Fenton, nationwide director of well being and wellbeing at Public Wellness England, explained: “Public Wellness England supports all efforts to improve tips, help and schooling to people who want to quit smoking. Our overall health campaigns, such as Stoptober and the recently launched Smokefree Health Harms, supply help to all men and women making an attempt to quit.

“For people with continual problems such as diabetes, normal wellness checks and, the place acceptable, referral to smoking cessation services, are a essential component of strengthening health and wellbeing.”

Diabetes sufferers who smoke "not obtaining appropriate treatment"