iblog

Rushda: A recent organ donation case has sparked much anger from across the country. The daughter of a woman who was in serious need of a kidney transplant suddenly died, but her organs were distributed to strangers against her wishes despite her mother being in need. The ruling was that preference couldn't be given to the mother even though the daughter had always wished to help, even expressing interests to be a "living donor" but never completing the formalities. Laura Ashworth, from Bradford, suddenly died from an asthma attack on 2nd April aged 21. Because she had agreed to be an organ donor whilst she was alive, the decision was made to user her organs for transplant after she died. However, even though Rachel Leake, the mother of Laura, was in desperate need of a kidney she was not allowed to take it because no preferential treatment could be given, and the kidneys went to three strangers on the transplant waiting list. Many people have felt outraged that the state could intervene in such a way when it is so intuitive that donors should be allowed to help their family first. Not only have Laura's wishes been disrespected but she has left behind her young daughter who is now dependent on her suffering mother. Mrs Leake is horrified by the decision and has said:

"I believe it should be overturned, I really do. It's an absolutely ridiculous law. Laura's helped three people through this, but Laura would have wanted to help me. To help her mum."

The Human Tissue Authority (HTA) defended its decision to not allow Mrs Leake to take Laura's kidneys. Adrian McNeil, who is chief executive of the HTA, said:

"The central principle of matching and allocating organs from the deceased is that they are allocated to the person on the UK Transplant waiting list who is most in need and who is the best match with the donor. In line with this central principle, a person cannot choose to whom their organ can be given when they die; nor can their family."

Even though he says this, he admits that there can be special circumstances to consider, which is why in the future the laws may be revised. It is just unfortunate, however, that such a statement will not help Laura's mother. What is especially terrible is that not only has this decision cost the mother and daughter but so many people have now lost faith in the donation system and have subsequently removed their name from the register. I cannot blame them: who wants to give something away voluntarily to know their wishes won't even be respected? Everyone would help their family if they were given the chance, especially their own mother who gave them life in the first place.

Rushda: People have long been in two minds about whether having a cup every day is actually beneficial or not - certainly, having too much caffeine has always been agreed to be risky. Well, lately a number of new studies have shown that the effects of drinking coffee in moderate amounts can have a number of very strong benefits for the brain. Previously, it was shown that that coffee cuts the risk of Alzheimer's disease, and now new studies have confirmed that coffee cuts down the damages of cholesterol and thereby reduces the risk of diseases such as dementia. Scientists call this "best evidence yet" for claiming that coffee is beneficial. One of the experiments that was conducted was in rabbits in North Dakota that were fed a fat-rich diet. It was found that those rabbits that were given a caffeine supplement had a much better protected barrier between the brain and the main blood supply than the rabbits which were not. Similarly in humans, scientists say that there is a "blood brain barrier" which protects the brain from harmful chemicals carried in the blood. This barrier is said to become "leaky" if one consumes high levels of cholesterol, which contributes to the risk of mental diseases such as Alzheimer's. Coffee strengthens this barrier, which means there is less potential for harmful chemicals to enter the brain. As Dr Jonathan Geiger, who led the study explains:

"Caffeine appears to block several of the disruptive effects of cholesterol that make the blood-brain barrier leaky," said Dr Jonathan Geiger, who led the study. High levels of cholesterol are a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, perhaps by compromising the protective nature of the blood brain barrier. Caffeine is a safe and readily available drug and its ability to stabilise the blood brain barrier means it could have an important part to play in therapies against neurological disorders."

This is very promising news, especially for those who are currently researching into cures for Alzheimer's disease. A spokesperson for the Alzheimer's Disease Society says:

"This is the best evidence yet that caffeine equivalent to one cup of coffee a day can help protect the brain against cholesterol. In addition to its effect on the vascular system, elevated cholesterol levels also cause problems with the blood brain barrier. This barrier, which protects the brain from toxins and infections, is less efficient prior to brain damage caused by Alzheimer's disease or strokes."

Coffee-lovers will be pleased that their favourite drink will also be protecting their brains for years to come.

Rushda: Royal Mint has unveiled new designs for British coins which have not changed in appearance in over 40 years, since decimalisation April 1968. Described as one of the biggest events in British History, the new coins, which can be seen here combine modern designs with traditional elegance. They were announced as the result of a competition which ran since 2005 and received over 4000 entries. The winning designer of the coins is 26-year-old Matthew Dent, a graphic designer who lives and works in London. What makes the designs particularly striking is that the royal coat of arms has been split amongst the six denominations, the crowning piece being the £1 which displays the entire heraldic shield. This is the first time the coins have contained elements of a singular design. The other side will retain the traditional image of the Queen's head and the two pound coin has not changed. Dent is understandably amazed that his own designs will be on every new British coin. He says:

"For designs of mine to appear on a medium as significant and prestigious as the United Kingdom's coinage and to be produced and circulated in millions is a tremendous honour."

The new designs mark a huge event in British history. As Andrew Stafford, chief executive of the Royal Mint explains:

"It is the only work of art that every member of the general public touches every day, that is important to the nation's way of life,"

The coins will gradually begin to circulate in the summer, though old coins will remain legal tender. Personally, I really like the thoughtful new designs and though the old coins will be missed (especially the 50 pence coins with images of Britannia), I'm sure most people will like the fresh new look which was long overdue. I can't wait to get my hands on some (though I suspect I'll be reluctant to use them as anything but a jigsaw puzzle initially!).

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?

Thomas King: Valentine's Day has been and gone and left in its wake the treacley-sweet feeling of how nice it is to be in love. But for many couples, the post-Valentine's match report can actually leave them questioning just how happy they really are. Fortunate then, that a new study from the University of Texas suggests a couple's relationship can be made much stronger by stepping into each other's shoes. The adjustment to parenthood after a new baby arrives has been identified as one of the most stressful times in a relationship and it can be weakened for up to a year after the birth. Recent studies have suggested that this may be because men were struggling to fill the traditional 'breadwinner' image of a father. This struggle was causing them to become "emotionally isolated" from their families as their duty to earn money became so much more significant. Up until now, though, little work has been done on families where the mother was the breadwinner and the father looked after the children. In theory, these couples should face even more stress from the arrival of a new child because, not only are they coping with their new responsibilities, but they also have to deal with society judging them for bucking the usual 'stay-at-home mum' and 'working dad' roles. In reality, the new University of Texas survey found, fathers who were also caregivers often rated their relationship satisfaction much higher. This increased satisfaction seemed to stem mostly from the fact that the men felt more supported by (and supportive of) their partners than those in a more traditional role. The men might have partly been more supportive as they felt freed of the responsibilities associated with a job. This, though, seemed unlikely since many men treated the daily responsibilities of childcare much like those of a job. The survey's authors suggested that, even if childcare was treated as a job, it was a job that felt more meaningful and more challenging for the fathers. This made them feel more supported as they were being allowed to try the role out while their partners took on their perceived responsibilities. At the same time, they understood the pressures facing their spouse in the working world and, as they could empathise, they were more supportive. This research shouldn't suggest to every man that he should instantly down tools and become a house-husband but it does emphasise how important it is to try to see things from your significant other's point-of-view. So instead of roses next year, perhaps the best Valentine's Day gift would be a good dose of perspective.

Rushda: The world's biggest fast-food provider McDonald's has just been approved to have its own McDonalds qualification, different componants of which could add up to count as an actual A-Level under the new Diplomas offered next autumn. McDonald's is in fact one of a number of new firms which are introducing government-regulated qualifications, other major companies being Flybe and Network Rail. Many are undestandably critical, saying that such a move could give the illusion of academic rigor and thus give a whole new meaning to the already-ridiculed "mickey mouse degree". Prime Minister Gordon Brown has, however, given the new ventures his wholehearted approval, reassuring everyone that this does not mean we are dumbing down as a nation. He says on GMTV about the course:

"It is going to be a tough course, but once you have got a qualification in management you can probably go anywhere. I think that is the important thing, companies prepared to train people up which they weren't doing before, in the way that we want them to do, in a far greater number, so that people have the qualifications for the future."

It certainly seems though that the government is doing everything it can to get more people getting qualifications, even if it does mean the qualifications have little respectable substance. When universities were asked whether they would accept such a qualification as a genuine one, predictably they were not too keen. Out of the ten admissions tutors who were asked, at least four said that they would not accept the new Diplomas. Even though they may not be accepted as sturdy A levels, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) have insisted that their approval now presents McDonald qualifications as being on par in terms of assessment. A spokesperson from QCA says:

"The Qualifications Credit Framework is a new framework that allows nationally recognised courses to be broken down into units. It is componentised so if a learner drops out of a course or can't manage to complete they can take those units with them. McDonald's have achieved the standards for awarding accredited qualifications at Level 3. This will enable them to assess, track and recognise learning that otherwise would be lost."

Personally I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand, it's great that vocational workplace skills are being given some recognition and next time I order a burger I won't end up with a McFlurry, but at the same time the snobby Oxbridge student in me wants to stamp my foot down in outrage. An A-Level for McDonalds? However good it may be for the restaurant chain itself, I doubt this wolf in sheep's clothing will get a non-McDonalds supper.

Kayleigh: Scientists have found that living a healthy life can increase an individuals life span by up to 14 years. Doing frequent exercise, not smoking, drinking in moderation and eating more fruit and vegetables were the key factor in increasing a person's life, a study by the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council based in Norfolk found. The Public Library of Science Medicine study involved research on 20,000 people over a time span of ten years. Participants, who were between the age of 45 and 79, were given a point for each of the four healthy behaviours, which were not smoking, exercising, drinking no more than than 15 units of alcohol per week, (which is less than five large glasses of wine) and eating five servings of fruit and vegetables a day. The results showed that the participants who were aged between 45 and 79, and who followed all four rules were more likely to have lived longer than those who didn't. In fact of those that didn't, some died. The results also showed that smokers were 77% more likely to have died during the ten year period. Professor Kay-Tee Khaw a gerontologist at Cambridge University who led the study said: "The results strongly suggest that these four achievable lifestyle changes could have a marked improvement on the health of middle-aged and older people, which is particularly important given the ageing population in the UK and other European countries." Health organisations welcomed the study and encourage people to take note of the findings. Judy O'Sullivan, who works at the British Heart Foundation said: "This is good news and shows that by living a healthy life, people can reduce their risk of dying from heart and circulatory disease. "By not smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, taking regular physical activity and eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, people can improve their chances of living longer." I am not a smoker, but I do tend to abuse alcohol on weekends and I should eat more fruit and vegetables, and this research has encouraged me to look after my body more. What better time to start than the New Year- this should help you keep your resolutions!

Rushda: Everyone knows that leading a healthy lifestyle by controlling your diet and exercise is the most important thing for ensuring a long life, but now leading scientists have finally confirmed how true this is, even putting a figure to the guidance by saying that anyone who follows the guidelines will on average increase their lifespan by 14 years. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Take regular exercise 2. Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables daily 3. Drink alcohol only in moderation 4. Don't smoke According to experts from University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council, anyone who follows the four simple things above will automatically boost their lifespan for an average of fourteen years. Not only this but they will encounter fewer health problems throughout their life too. The research involved in producing these results involved analysing the habits of over 20,000 people over a decade where it was found that people who failed on all four of the criteria had more health problems and were in times four times more likely to die during that period than those who succeeded. Furthermore, what is especially encouraging is that it doesn't even matter if you are poor or overweight, fulfilling the above will still help you just as much. Professor Kay-Tee Khaw, who led the research says:

"We've know that individually, measures such as not smoking and exercising can have an impact upon longevity, but this is the first time we have looked at them altogether. And we also found that social class and BMI - body mass index - really did not have a role to play. It means a large proportion of the population really could feel health benefits through moderate changes."

This is great news and should encourage everyone to take the simple steps highlighted in order to have longer, healthier, and no doubt happier lives.

Rushda: It may be a very obvious part of raising a child but surprisingly many parents are neglecting reading stories to their children at bedtime. Experts say that the benefits to the child are easily underestimated as it not only boosts literacy but is also great fun. The schools secretary Ed Balls, as well as launching the first ever "national year of reading" in a decade, is also encouraging all parents to share a bedtime story with children daily as this could be one of the most important parts of their childhood. Balls has said that the dropping literacy standards in the UK compared to other countries in Europe is partly because children have been brought up to enjoy reading less. But he argues that a ten-minute read before bed every night would be enough to kickstart their enthusiasm, and it should be as routine as "brushing their teeth or having a bath". Indeed the success of such activities may be clearer when we see that many leading authors have sworn by their own experiences of bedtime reading as an essential part of growing up and forming their careers in later life. For example, the poet laureate Andrew Motion says:

"[I loved] the Mary Plain books, which my mum read herself as a child, and one book called Tim Minds the Shop. She started when I was very young. I went to bed, said my prayers and had a story. It went on 15 minutes and my brother and I always begged for it to go one longer. Perfect, really."

Similarly the best-selling author Philip Pullman, famous for his His Dark Materials trilogy has said that he was always read to by his Mother, favourites including Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling. He said:

"Children don’t need simple language, they need beautiful, rich language,"

He also warned that parents shouldn't get excited about using the stories as a way of teaching their children phonetics at the expense of the actual story:

“Reading is not about phonics, it is about fun. It is about the jolly japes the cat in the hat gets up to, not about CAT.”

Parents should take note that reading is essential as a way of encouraging children to use their imagination and have some fun as well as become more proficient at language. In today's busy world where parents don't seem to have much time for their children, it is also something that brings family members together, and it doesn't matter what age you are, for being able to enjoy a story can be appreciated at all ages.