iblog

Rushda: BBC Radio 4’s newsreader Charlotte Green has caused hundreds of comments being sent in as she started laughing on air whilst presenting this morning. The well-known 50 year old reader, who incidentally has also been voted to have the “Most Attractive Female Voice on National Radio”, was discussing an ancient recording of the human voice when she started giggling uncontrollably. She squirmed her way through her next news story which, to put the cherry on the cake, happened to be on a death. Here is the clip.

Green, who is also said to have done a very similar thing ten years ago, is embarrassed about the incident. She says it was sparked by a colleague telling her that the sound was like a “bee buzzing in a bottle”. Describing how difficult it was to keep a straight face when discussing the death of screenwriter Abby Mann, Green said:

“I’m afraid I just lost it, I was completely ambushed by the giggles. I did feel slightly embarrassed, knowing I have this reputation that I am prone to getting the giggles”

However, many listeners found the incident cheered up their day, with Today’s editor, Ceri Thomas, saying that most listeners who contacted them said “how much they had enjoyed the moment”. Not only that but Green’s fit of the giggles was repeated on later in the day as there had been so many requests to hear it again. As Green says:

“People have been very sweet and everyone has been coming up to me said how much it has cheered up their Friday morning.”

Whilst some may have found the incident insulting, I’m glad that most have been amused to witness their favourite dignified newsreader reduced to this state on air. Personally, I completely empathise with Charlotte as I know full well how difficult it is to stop laughing sometimes, and the more you try and suppress it, the worse it becomes! It is just unlucky how bad the timing was. Let’s hope any offended listeners can take this very human behaviour with a pinch of salt.

Thomas King:

A new ‘smart drug’ for treating rheumatoid arthritis has received extremely positive results in two separate trials published this week in The Lancet.

Medical schools at the University of Vienna and the University of Yokohama have studied rheumatoid arthritis sufferers over a wide age range being treated with tocilizumab, a drug developed by pharmaceutical giants Roche and Chugai. Both studies found that the treatment could massively reduce the severity of the symptoms which the patients had to suffer and could do so with fewer side effects than common treatments

Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disorder which affects over 450,000 people in the UK and is far more common in women than men. The disease creates painful swellings in the joints and can even destroy the cartilage padding them, making the pain even worse. It can also lead to tiredness and other symptoms such as rashes and can increase the risk of heart disease.

These symptoms are caused by the immune system mistakenly identifying cells of the sufferer’s own body as disease microbes. It attacks these cells by flooding them with white blood cells called T-lymphocytes

The disease is usually treated with drugs called disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the most common of which is called methotrexate. These drugs work by blocking the enzyme pathways needed to allow the T-lymphocytes to form and to attach to the sufferer’s cells. The major disadvantage of these treatments is that they are all extremely toxic and cannot be taken for a prolonged period of time, making them unsuitable for treating chronic sufferers.

Tocilizumab works by attacking the problem from a different angle. It blocks the synthesis of a protein called interleukin-6 which is found in high concentrations in severely inflamed joints and, by doing so, claims to reduce the severity of the condition. It is also far less toxic as it blocks a less crucial pathway.

The first study, by the University of Vienna, focussed on adult sufferers and says that the new drug, based on the structure of a human antibody, “significantly and rapidly improves the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis”.

In this trial, the drug was given to 623 patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. A successful outcome for this study was defined as a 20% improvement in symptoms (under American College of Rheumatology criteria)

Of the 623 patients, 205 were given 8mg of tocilizumab per kg of body weight, 214 patients received 4mg per kg of body weight and 204 received a placebo. The drugs and placebo were given intravenously every four weeks, along with methotrexate, at doses of 10-25mg per week.

After 24 weeks, 59% of patients receiving the 8mg dose had shown a 20% decrease in symptoms. In those receiving 4mg, 48% recorded a response, compared with 26% in the placebo group. This, the study says, proves that tocilizumab could be “an effective agent for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.”

The second study, by the University of Yokohama, focussed on juvenile arthritis sufferers aged 2-19. It found an improvement in symptoms in 91% of the patients treated and hails tocilizumab as “a step forward in the control of a disease that has previously proved to be difficult to manage”.

Both trials found adverse effects, such as gastric infections, in some subjects but, compared to the extreme side effects which traditional arthritis treatments can have, these were comparatively minor. Therefore, tocilizamub seems to represent a significant advance in the treatment of this painful and crippling disease.

Rushda: New legislations regarding IVF treatment have recently made it impossible for parents to choose an embryo with a genetic defect when a healthy one is available. Most people would regard this as an important and beneficial move but a recent case has sparked much controversy over the issue. A set of deaf parents, who see deafness as a cultural phenomenon rather than a true disability, want to have a deaf child despite being able to have a hearing child instead.

This is one of the few cases where the parents have preferred their child to have a disability than to not, and it has sparked outrage from both sides. Tomato Lichy and his partner, who already “thankfully” have a deaf child, argue that they will be able to connect better with their new child if it cannot hear - deafness, they say, comes with many beautiful cultural features such as deaf in-jokes and deaf-language. They argue that to refuse their right to have a deaf child would be discrimination, effectively saying that deaf people cannot have worthwhile lives. As Lichy says:

“The core issue is that the government is saying deaf people are not equal to hearing people. Despite the fact that over time we have seen more and more rights for disabled people they are now seeking to establish a legal principle that deaf people are inferior - and there may be more laws once this gap opens.”

For Lichy and his partner, the preference is so great that they would regard a hearing child as a disabled one. However, many have retaliated by saying that deliberately choosing a child who will face problems in life is morally condemnable. It cannot be discrimination because the argument is not that deaf children don’t have worthy lives but that hearing children have a higher potential for a better life. As chief executive Jackie Ballard of The Royal National Institute for Deaf People explains:

“Deafness is a disability and we have spent a long time campaigning to improve the lives of people who live with it. But it is certainly not a slight to the deaf to say it is better to bring a child who will face the least difficulty into the world, when there is a choice to be made.”

Personally, I agree and I think that to call hearing ability a disability is not only absurd but insulting to the majority of deaf people who do feel that their lack of hearing is a deficiency. Thankfully the Royal National Institute for Deaf People are also against Lichy’s plans. Why deliberately cause damage to a child without even giving it a chance of hearing? (no hearing child would feel “worse off”) The parents may feel that deafness has given them comparable substitutes, but how would they even know how good hearing is? At any rate, the argument is a slippery slope. What’s to stop parents who can’t walk now asking for a limbless child?