Friday, November 26, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Kates Playground Masterbates Shower
Ah ben voilà ...
... it was not that difficult, right? Pope, yes, found a way to explain that in some circumstances the use of condoms was ok, not ideal for him, but still acceptable.
Well, okay, he way to catch . And now, to the praise of the planet, some hurried to minimize what actually would have really changed . It's a shame. But whatever. To those who really wrong, it can not be asked for more. Less harm is already very good. And less harmful when one calls a spiritual guide to more than one billion people, it's very ... very ... important.
A good point, therefore, to Benedict XVI. Those who watch the soul may find its late response and reticent. They regret it. But in medicine we care about the effects first. If it can prevent from becoming healthy sick, protect life, keep whole families threatened, and incidentally reduce world poverty, then we are takers. 
... it was not that difficult, right? Pope, yes, found a way to explain that in some circumstances the use of condoms was ok, not ideal for him, but still acceptable.
Well, okay, he way to catch . And now, to the praise of the planet, some hurried to minimize what actually would have really changed . It's a shame. But whatever. To those who really wrong, it can not be asked for more. Less harm is already very good. And less harmful when one calls a spiritual guide to more than one billion people, it's very ... very ... important.
A good point, therefore, to Benedict XVI. Those who watch the soul may find its late response and reticent. They regret it. But in medicine we care about the effects first. If it can prevent from becoming healthy sick, protect life, keep whole families threatened, and incidentally reduce world poverty, then we are takers.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Activemoviewindow Power Dvd
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Ny Temporary Visitor Expire
Rappaz: the fourth option?
Should Bernard Rappaz release to save his life, since the forced nutrition is not applicable ? Difficult question, which seems to divide the public romand and federal parliamentarians. The Grand Council Valais must address his request for clemency on Thursday 18 November. Maybe calls 'last chance' have an influence, but now he would say, very surprising that the Grace be granted.
That said, it is important to understand that the issue of a release is not limited to this request for clemency. To understand the problem as it arises more realistically, three points are important here: First
one you've probably all aware:
1) A suspended sentence is not a grace
It is also a release, but without shortening of the total sentence. Three days out of prison in these circumstances is to add three days in prison later. This question, which is also on the table, not necessarily those of the Grand Council but that the situation in any case is very different from that of a pardon.
Also:
2) Suspend the sentence of a dying man is the norm in Switzerland, not an exception
Dying in prison is a human drama. A drama that has become superimposed, and which is not contemplated by the sentence which the inmate was convicted. Accordingly, when the death of an inmate incarcerated in Switzerland is predictable, it is usual that an application for release is sent to the judge. Allowing a prisoner who is not-or more dangerous to die free is an honorable request. To which the response, in Switzerland, is usually positive. If what matters is not to make an exception for Bernard Rappaz, so let him die in prison so that he would seek a suspension on these grounds would be quite inconsistent. That would ultimately make an exception in his case . By refusing to release him to die, it would do to him as we do not for others. Accept a suspension of sentence for this reason is not so make him an exception. So it's a crisis that could eventually, perhaps, be acceptable to all.
And then if he resumed eating and eventually died does not? It simply resume its barely ...
3) Any suspension of sentence may be conditioned by the dangerousness of the inmate
Some people who have called for the suspension of the penalty Rappaz also raised the issue that arises in the case of a strike from hunger by a dangerous inmate. It is a very good question. But this is not one that arises now. Suspend the sentence of a prisoner recognized by all as non-hazardous, taking explicitly into account that it is not dangerous, would not last for that other type of case.
It is important to understand all that. So yes, of course, perhaps a suspension of sentence in any case seem unacceptable to the authorities of Valais. Even in a context where other prisoners would have obtained. It has also seen the most recent law of Switzerland on the hunger strike, that of Neuchatel, let die a prisoner hunger strike, "if the person does so in good conscience and will. " And even if we imagine that the authorities willingly Neuchâtel would first try to find an arrangement that avoids this end, we imagine that in some cases it may be regarded as the least worst options available.
The case of Bernard Rappaz Will he considered such a situation? It is not excluded. But it is important to understand that accepting a suspension for health reasons or for reasons of end of life, would not he make an exception. This is important because the Valais authorities should be able, if they wish, make that choice without being accused of succumbing to blackmail. They would in this case not alter the normal application of penalties, precisely. They would have done to him exactly like any other. Neither more nor less.
Maybe I'm wrong in this analysis. Your comments are welcome as usual. But it seems that if we want is to both avoid an exception, and avoid subjecting an inmate to inhuman and degrading , and avoid leaving it to die, well this time it is possible .. . 
Should Bernard Rappaz release to save his life, since the forced nutrition is not applicable ? Difficult question, which seems to divide the public romand and federal parliamentarians. The Grand Council Valais must address his request for clemency on Thursday 18 November. Maybe calls 'last chance' have an influence, but now he would say, very surprising that the Grace be granted. That said, it is important to understand that the issue of a release is not limited to this request for clemency. To understand the problem as it arises more realistically, three points are important here: First
one you've probably all aware:
1) A suspended sentence is not a grace
It is also a release, but without shortening of the total sentence. Three days out of prison in these circumstances is to add three days in prison later. This question, which is also on the table, not necessarily those of the Grand Council but that the situation in any case is very different from that of a pardon.
Also:
2) Suspend the sentence of a dying man is the norm in Switzerland, not an exception
Dying in prison is a human drama. A drama that has become superimposed, and which is not contemplated by the sentence which the inmate was convicted. Accordingly, when the death of an inmate incarcerated in Switzerland is predictable, it is usual that an application for release is sent to the judge. Allowing a prisoner who is not-or more dangerous to die free is an honorable request. To which the response, in Switzerland, is usually positive. If what matters is not to make an exception for Bernard Rappaz, so let him die in prison so that he would seek a suspension on these grounds would be quite inconsistent. That would ultimately make an exception in his case . By refusing to release him to die, it would do to him as we do not for others. Accept a suspension of sentence for this reason is not so make him an exception. So it's a crisis that could eventually, perhaps, be acceptable to all.
And then if he resumed eating and eventually died does not? It simply resume its barely ...
3) Any suspension of sentence may be conditioned by the dangerousness of the inmate
Some people who have called for the suspension of the penalty Rappaz also raised the issue that arises in the case of a strike from hunger by a dangerous inmate. It is a very good question. But this is not one that arises now. Suspend the sentence of a prisoner recognized by all as non-hazardous, taking explicitly into account that it is not dangerous, would not last for that other type of case.
It is important to understand all that. So yes, of course, perhaps a suspension of sentence in any case seem unacceptable to the authorities of Valais. Even in a context where other prisoners would have obtained. It has also seen the most recent law of Switzerland on the hunger strike, that of Neuchatel, let die a prisoner hunger strike, "if the person does so in good conscience and will. " And even if we imagine that the authorities willingly Neuchâtel would first try to find an arrangement that avoids this end, we imagine that in some cases it may be regarded as the least worst options available.
The case of Bernard Rappaz Will he considered such a situation? It is not excluded. But it is important to understand that accepting a suspension for health reasons or for reasons of end of life, would not he make an exception. This is important because the Valais authorities should be able, if they wish, make that choice without being accused of succumbing to blackmail. They would in this case not alter the normal application of penalties, precisely. They would have done to him exactly like any other. Neither more nor less.
Maybe I'm wrong in this analysis. Your comments are welcome as usual. But it seems that if we want is to both avoid an exception, and avoid subjecting an inmate to inhuman and degrading , and avoid leaving it to die, well this time it is possible .. .
Friday, November 12, 2010
Watch Free Hd Bangbross .com
Treating Cholera Cases
Normally I'm not strictly medical post on this blog.
But once will not hurt. Because looking at the keywords that lead people here, I am regularly affected by those seeking how to treat cholera . Fall here when looking for clinical, it must be disappointing. If you are looking for how to treat cholera, so the message is written expressly for you. I put a link to the recipe of rehydration salts in a previous post, but this team has made a video. It shows , without words so without a language barrier, how to save a life with, ultimately, the means of edges. Attention is also demonstrated how recognize cholera, and certain images are ... ahem ... clinics. Perhaps difficult to see. If the subject does not interest you, do not look. This blog is still a blog Bioethics, worry, This message is a parenthesis.
But there as cholera continue to plague Haiti , the more the better video is available ...
Normally I'm not strictly medical post on this blog.
But once will not hurt. Because looking at the keywords that lead people here, I am regularly affected by those seeking how to treat cholera . Fall here when looking for clinical, it must be disappointing. If you are looking for how to treat cholera, so the message is written expressly for you. I put a link to the recipe of rehydration salts in a previous post, but this team has made a video. It shows , without words so without a language barrier, how to save a life with, ultimately, the means of edges. Attention is also demonstrated how recognize cholera, and certain images are ... ahem ... clinics. Perhaps difficult to see. If the subject does not interest you, do not look. This blog is still a blog Bioethics, worry, This message is a parenthesis.
But there as cholera continue to plague Haiti , the more the better video is available ...
Sunday, November 7, 2010
How To Get Shiny Pokemon In Pearl
comment: Doctors and the Federal Court Judgement of Multiple Loves
You have the courage to even a message on nutrition enforced? Well, this time I will "cheat" and make a case comment. For these times, everyone seems to have an opinion on what to do with the decision of 26 August of TF in the case between the DSAS Valais Bernard Rappaz.
should apply. And they say that doctors are opposed to this. Apply it, yes. And I said, I do not think that physicians are opposed to it actually . Maybe you have another opinion? Give it. But first read the decision. It is a document worth reading. Well, I know, it's not necessarily easy legal access. But you're smart people. And it is not so long, it contains many interesting things, and it keeps the time being misquoted. So for ease of reading (the search tool of the jurisprudence of the TF is not the easiest of the world), I've put online. Here is the link, in words:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 40434339/Arret-TF-6B-599-2 DSAS 010-Valais-vs-Rappaz
And if you know someone who needs to read it, thank you to move ...
As this is a case to comment, and that the goal is not to debate stop, I said the question for the comments:
Doctors who oppose the forced nutrition the name because it would imply a significant violence thus preclude the application of the TF Case?
The question is not whether they are right or wrong. Or whether the TF is right or wrong. Or who should, in a case like this, decide. The question is whether an opposition by doctors on behalf of that argument is yes or no opposition the application of that decision.
Please motivate. It is a blog for Bioethics, is not it. Obviously, be careful: if you give an answer without having read the decision, it may be. But you do not like that, you say eh? 
You have the courage to even a message on nutrition enforced? Well, this time I will "cheat" and make a case comment. For these times, everyone seems to have an opinion on what to do with the decision of 26 August of TF in the case between the DSAS Valais Bernard Rappaz. should apply. And they say that doctors are opposed to this. Apply it, yes. And I said, I do not think that physicians are opposed to it actually . Maybe you have another opinion? Give it. But first read the decision. It is a document worth reading. Well, I know, it's not necessarily easy legal access. But you're smart people. And it is not so long, it contains many interesting things, and it keeps the time being misquoted. So for ease of reading (the search tool of the jurisprudence of the TF is not the easiest of the world), I've put online. Here is the link, in words:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
And if you know someone who needs to read it, thank you to move ...
As this is a case to comment, and that the goal is not to debate stop, I said the question for the comments:
Doctors who oppose the forced nutrition the name because it would imply a significant violence thus preclude the application of the TF Case?
The question is not whether they are right or wrong. Or whether the TF is right or wrong. Or who should, in a case like this, decide. The question is whether an opposition by doctors on behalf of that argument is yes or no opposition the application of that decision.
Please motivate. It is a blog for Bioethics, is not it. Obviously, be careful: if you give an answer without having read the decision, it may be. But you do not like that, you say eh?
Pain Killer To Take Before Waxing
I continue my rule not to speak of forced nutrition. No but still. Life is much more beautiful than that. not just because the universe is a wonderful place . In the list that would make most people about what makes life beautiful, there must be prominently love. To write, if you want, with plenty of 'a' and 'u'. But that is your business.
In the video, which opens this message - and you will find here - Helen Fisher examines scientific rigor with a wonderful and amazing poetry the feeling s love. A conference that is worth seeing. You certainly will find. In Anyway, if you are a member of the species homo sapiens and not a google robots that spends time on blogging ...
He talks about addiction, and it is not entirely surprising. So if you become addicted to this kind of research, there is another conference in the same kind here.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Saying For Diaper Raffle
We need explorers
I know, I know, I hear a lot of time these tragic cases. So a few posts on these things that make life beautiful. In it, curiosity. At a time when the crisis threatens the budgets of research, including near here, a brief but magnificent conference Brian Cox recalls Why we need explorers . Click on the link or image. And just tell me what you think. 
I know, I know, I hear a lot of time these tragic cases. So a few posts on these things that make life beautiful. In it, curiosity. At a time when the crisis threatens the budgets of research, including near here, a brief but magnificent conference Brian Cox recalls Why we need explorers . Click on the link or image. And just tell me what you think.
Swollen Stomach After Hernia Surgery
again forced nutrition
hard to remain calm and think in a situation so tense that a hunger strike. In any case, it sometimes gives the impression that reading newspapers commenting on the case of Bernard Rappaz. So a little clarification.
Item 1 - The Geneva-based physicians do not preclude the application of TF Case: they have understood it all.
That case, who has actually read ? This can be explained as follows:
"Proceed to force-feeding violates fundamental rights to freedom of expression and personal integrity of the prisoner. To justify the forced nutrition, so you have a justification in court these transgressions. In Switzerland, limiting a fundamental right requires several conditions. It is necessary that the restriction is justified by public interest. Let. The restriction must be proportionate to that aim. Finally, "the essence of fundamental rights is inviolable . What is the essence of fundamental rights? Here, just know that "the right not to be subjected to punishment or to cruel, inhuman or degrading" is included, and that the federal court explicitly concede. Forced nutrition is therefore justified that if it is not inhuman or degrading treatment. only "if it is done with dignity and in accordance with the rules of the art of medicine" . "
" If it is done with dignity and in accordance with the rules of medical art. " Physicians do not have to comply with any order. Stopping TF clearly excluded from this requirement a scenario: one where nutrition forced represent inhuman and degrading treatment. On this point, law and ethics are in perfect agreement. Which brings us to ...
Item 2 - The law and medical ethics are sometimes at odds, yes, but this is not the main issue here.
From an excellent interview with Alex Mauron in the press today:
"The Federal Court has a caricature of ethics when talking about medical directives of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences as if it were the alpha and omega of medical ethics. This revolves around the right to self-determination of the patient. It is anchored in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights in biomedicine is to say in the most basic international law. In fact, the Federal Court also admits this. OK, lip perhaps. Between the lines, no doubt. But he admits. Because you never know if you're in a situation where he can practice a diet 'worthy'? You guessed it: Based on the judgments of clinicians aware of the values of their profession. Where:
Item 3 - Eligibility (legal as well as ethical) nutrition depends, among other forced a clinical trial.
is also one of the criteria identified in the report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in a 2009 report on forced nutrition applied in Spain. This review has been quoted as admitting that nutrition can sometimes forced to qualify. It is worthwhile to look at the detail. Here is their advice texto:
"14. If a decision is made to force-feed a prisoner on hunger strike, the CPT's opinion, such a decision should be based on medical necessity and applied in appropriate conditions that reflect the medical nature of the measure. Moreover, the decision process must follow an established procedure containing adequate safeguard, including an independent medical decision. The possibility of legal recourse should be available and all aspects of the implementation of the decision must be monitored adequately
(...)
Nutrition forced a prisoner without meeting these conditions could quite match treatment inhuman and degrading treatment. "
" Including a independent medical decision, which is one of the "watchdog" required. The CPT therefore acknowledges that in effect forced nutrition may be eligible, yes. But only if this conditions, and a few others of course are met.
The threat of justice to prosecute doctors Valais who refuse the order to feed their power is deeply disturbing patient, because it seems based on a combination of these errors. The doctors did not follow an order based on the decision of TF if the situation is not one defined by the TF. And ethical considerations on which these are based physicians are not 'external'. They are 'anchored in the law', and are among the criteria used to define TF as the scope of his arrest: he excludes the possibility of inhuman and degrading treatment.
embarrassing, this threat is also that it gives the impression that the logic of the standoff continues. That the question is who is the strongest. The question is knowing how to get out of this situation honorably. Without sacrificing core values. Or as little as possible.
For that we must abandon the logic of the standoff, exactly. Continue to seek a solution that saves Hwy ant as possible, goat and cabbage. If it exists. When none is that we are faced with a tragic case. A situation where whatever we do there will be a serious transgression. But all the transgressions are not equal. Violating someone's human rights is precisely what is supposed to have decided not to make any money. The TF says so: Swiss law also provides that 'the essence of fundamental rights is inviolable'. In other words, we have decided that it remained to the end of the rights we will not infringe, even in the name of a very very very good cause ... 
hard to remain calm and think in a situation so tense that a hunger strike. In any case, it sometimes gives the impression that reading newspapers commenting on the case of Bernard Rappaz. So a little clarification. Item 1 - The Geneva-based physicians do not preclude the application of TF Case: they have understood it all.
That case, who has actually read ? This can be explained as follows:
"Proceed to force-feeding violates fundamental rights to freedom of expression and personal integrity of the prisoner. To justify the forced nutrition, so you have a justification in court these transgressions. In Switzerland, limiting a fundamental right requires several conditions. It is necessary that the restriction is justified by public interest. Let. The restriction must be proportionate to that aim. Finally, "the essence of fundamental rights is inviolable . What is the essence of fundamental rights? Here, just know that "the right not to be subjected to punishment or to cruel, inhuman or degrading" is included, and that the federal court explicitly concede. Forced nutrition is therefore justified that if it is not inhuman or degrading treatment. only "if it is done with dignity and in accordance with the rules of the art of medicine" . "
" If it is done with dignity and in accordance with the rules of medical art. " Physicians do not have to comply with any order. Stopping TF clearly excluded from this requirement a scenario: one where nutrition forced represent inhuman and degrading treatment. On this point, law and ethics are in perfect agreement. Which brings us to ...
Item 2 - The law and medical ethics are sometimes at odds, yes, but this is not the main issue here.
From an excellent interview with Alex Mauron in the press today:
"The Federal Court has a caricature of ethics when talking about medical directives of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences as if it were the alpha and omega of medical ethics. This revolves around the right to self-determination of the patient. It is anchored in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights in biomedicine is to say in the most basic international law. In fact, the Federal Court also admits this. OK, lip perhaps. Between the lines, no doubt. But he admits. Because you never know if you're in a situation where he can practice a diet 'worthy'? You guessed it: Based on the judgments of clinicians aware of the values of their profession. Where:
Item 3 - Eligibility (legal as well as ethical) nutrition depends, among other forced a clinical trial.
is also one of the criteria identified in the report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in a 2009 report on forced nutrition applied in Spain. This review has been quoted as admitting that nutrition can sometimes forced to qualify. It is worthwhile to look at the detail. Here is their advice texto:
"14. If a decision is made to force-feed a prisoner on hunger strike, the CPT's opinion, such a decision should be based on medical necessity and applied in appropriate conditions that reflect the medical nature of the measure. Moreover, the decision process must follow an established procedure containing adequate safeguard, including an independent medical decision. The possibility of legal recourse should be available and all aspects of the implementation of the decision must be monitored adequately
(...)
Nutrition forced a prisoner without meeting these conditions could quite match treatment inhuman and degrading treatment. "
" Including a independent medical decision, which is one of the "watchdog" required. The CPT therefore acknowledges that in effect forced nutrition may be eligible, yes. But only if this conditions, and a few others of course are met.
The threat of justice to prosecute doctors Valais who refuse the order to feed their power is deeply disturbing patient, because it seems based on a combination of these errors. The doctors did not follow an order based on the decision of TF if the situation is not one defined by the TF. And ethical considerations on which these are based physicians are not 'external'. They are 'anchored in the law', and are among the criteria used to define TF as the scope of his arrest: he excludes the possibility of inhuman and degrading treatment.
embarrassing, this threat is also that it gives the impression that the logic of the standoff continues. That the question is who is the strongest. The question is knowing how to get out of this situation honorably. Without sacrificing core values. Or as little as possible.
For that we must abandon the logic of the standoff, exactly. Continue to seek a solution that saves Hwy ant as possible, goat and cabbage. If it exists. When none is that we are faced with a tragic case. A situation where whatever we do there will be a serious transgression. But all the transgressions are not equal. Violating someone's human rights is precisely what is supposed to have decided not to make any money. The TF says so: Swiss law also provides that 'the essence of fundamental rights is inviolable'. In other words, we have decided that it remained to the end of the rights we will not infringe, even in the name of a very very very good cause ...
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)