News from Drews Sign It Pty Ltd

This month, on the anniversary of the 1907 run on the stock of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, setting events in motion that was the catalyst for a depression, as well as the anniversary of the first United States casualties in Vietnam, and the anniversary in 1966 when the Supremes became the first all-female music group to attain a No. 1 selling album (The Supremes A' Go-Go), it was October 22, 1983 that Cathy and I got married (the wife doesn't seem excited at the prospect that many more years lay ahead).

Also this month, on the anniversary of the 1969 first-ever computer-to-computer link established on ARPANET, the precursor to the Internet and the anniversary of the 1929 New York Stock Exchange crash, later called the Crash of '29 or "Black Tuesday", ending the Great Bull Market of the 1920s and beginning the Great Depression, I turned 49. (Steady ladies, I know some would be shocked to find out I'm not in my mid 20's).

Next month of course, we have my Parents 51st Wedding Anniversary. I must confess I thought I heard my wife sigh when I suggested we'd be there in another 25 years, but she denies it.

We were totally shattered with some bad news though. Something that no parent wants to hear. Something that puts fear and yearning into the hearts of just about anyone. Our son came home from school with the dreadful news; he'd been picked to play trumpet at school.

My first reaction was was to cry, but then he assured us he'd have a mute. If his teacher is reading this, can I ask what year the mute will be made available?

My wife and I wish we'd learned sign language. We can see each others lips move, but only hear each other when my son runs out of air.

He goes a lovely shade of blue though.

Husbands cause mental illness??

A recent report in the English press states 'FATHERS are better off staying away from the delivery room because their presence adds to a mother's stress and can even lead to mental illness'. The statement is attributed to a leading obstetrician.

The article goes on to say that 'Michael Odent claims having a husband or partner in the room at the birth increases the likelihood of a Caesarean section, subsequent marriage break-up and even mental illness. He also believes it makes the labour longer and more painful because the woman is distracted by the father's anxiety.

Delivering children would be much simpler if women were left alone in the care of their midwife, he claims. (He has my vote!)

'The ideal birth environment involves no men in general,' he said. 'Having been involved for more than 50 years in childbirths in homes and hospitals in France, England and Africa, the best environment I know for an easy birth is when there is nobody around the woman in labour apart from a silent, low-profile and experienced midwife. (I might add the midwife is only silent because she can't get a word in edgeways because the wife is reminding anyone that is in earshot that her situation is all her husbands fault.)

'In this situation, more often than not, the birth is easier and faster than what happens when there are other people around, especially male figures husbands and doctors.'

But Dr Odent claimed that having males present at the birth makes the mother tense, leading her to produce adrenaline.
This slows her production of the hormone oxytocin, which is vital for childbirth, thus extending the length of the labour.'

First question this raises in my mind is; is this man actually married?

I think the good Dr has got the story all wrong.

From what I've heard, if the husband is down the pub, or enjoying himself while she is in labour, it is THEN that her adrenalin would start pumping! It doesn't bode well for the new father to come up with the excuse "but darling, I thought you'd be more comfortable if I was somewhere else". The guy would be mad to try it. I guess that is what he means by mental illness?

I know from personal experience on two different occasions, that excuses just do not work. Hubby is expected to be there at any cost!

It is so obvious to me. Who else is the wife going to hurl abuse at when she realizes that she has to get an item the size of a watermelon out of an opening that is considerably smaller?

I might point out too that I think research would show that the fathers anxiety is directly related to his wife questioning his heritage.

The answer is simple. Give the hubby the laughing gas, and ear plugs, and all will be sweet... at least till they get home. I guess that is where the marriage breakup would come in.

(source dailymail.co.uk)

Seeing Red?

I was sent this by a client the other day, as a contribution to my newsletter. It makes interesting reading, especially if you have need for an operation in the near future.

New Scientist, a well respected journal reports that in April 2008, Eurekalert.org published some startling findings on the use of blood transfusions. It said, in part that "... some surgeons and anesthetists are questioning whether every patient shouldn't get the same treatment. Over the past decade a number of studies have found that, far from saving lives, blood transfusions can actually harm many patients.

The problem is not the much-publicised risk of blood-borne infectious agents, such as HIV, but the blood itself.

Study after study has shown that transfusions, particularly those containing red blood cells, are linked to higher death rates in patients who have had a heart attack, undergone heart surgery, or who are in critical care.

The exact nature of the link is uncertain, but it seems likely that chemical changes in aging blood, their impact on the immune system, and the blood's ability to deliver oxygen are key. In fact, most experts now agree that the risk posed by the transfused blood itself is far greater than that of a blood-borne infection.

The article goes on to say that "Probably 40 to 60 per cent of blood transfusions are not good for the patients," says Bruce Spiess, a cardiac anesthesiologist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

Such claims have led .... to the US National Institutes of Health issuing a call for proposals to study the problem. Also ...., the Joint Commission in Chicago, which accredits US hospitals, is holding ... several meetings to look for ways to reduce the risks.

It is expected to at least conclude that hospitals should be more selective in the use of transfusions."

It points out that Blood transfusion became a mainstay of medicine during the two world wars, where it was used as a last resort to save soldiers who had suffered massive blood loss. But now, far from being restricted to catastrophic bleeding, transfusions are routinely used as an optional treatment, most commonly for patients in intensive care or undergoing major surgery.

In these situations, mostly small volumes of red cells are transfused, usually after they have been stored at 4 �C for anything up to 42 days. The rationale behind such blood transfusions seems incontrovertible. Red cells deliver vital oxygen to tissues, and seriously ill patients who are also anaemic fare less well, so a transfusion should help.

Those assumptions went untested for the better part of a century.

The complete article is found here

In this day and age of unexplained deaths, increased litigation, bed shortages and health issues, it makes me wonder why the health system hasn't adopted bloodless options.

Interestingly, sites like noblood.org and others now offer bloodless surgery hospital lists for just about any operation, and most report faster healing times, less infection and less time stayed in hospital.

(Source New Scientist, Eurekalert.org)

Cars, Kids and Smoke

Queenslanders caught smoking in cars with children under the age of 16 will be slapped with $200 on the spot fines

New state laws banning smoking in cars carrying children will become effective from January 1 next year and will apply on all public roads.

Deputy Premier Paul Lucas said the penalties were similar to those for people caught using a mobile phone while driving.

"Obviously we don't expect the police to be on every shop corner or street corner issuing tickets but they can intercept people when they are smoking with kids in the car," Mr Lucas told ABC Radio this morning.

He rebuffed suggestions the legislation was a case of state revenue raising, saying the smoking ban was about protecting future generations.

"The level of tobacco smoke inside a vehicle is very high, and we know young children involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke in confined environments have significantly increased health risks, including bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, ear infections and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," he said.

There are 276,000 smokers with children aged under 16 in Queensland.

More here

Although I have no problem with the initiative, I don't believe for a minute that revenue raising was not the primary reason.

Does that sound cynical?

(Source brisbanetimes.com.au)

Finally, spare a thought for PepsiCo who, through a simple mistake, didn't even appear in court to fight a charge of stealing another companies ideas.

The resulting settlement is a huge chunk of the drink giants profits.

The National Law Journal reported recently that a US judge has ordered PepsiCo to pay US$1.26 billion ($1.4 billion) to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's number two soft drink maker the lawsuit existed.

PepsiCo have a reputation in being very aggressive in litigation for something they don't like, and I'd suggest they may have got a bit of their own medicine.

That follows a story recently that Apple Computers are trying to stop Woolworths in Australia using their new logo, as it vaguely resembles an apple.

Woolies Logo

Now that someone has pointed it out to me, I see the resemblance, but at no time before or after I realised the logos likeness to fruit, did it prompt me to ponder if they made computers.

The world is going mad, no doubt about it.

That's about it for this edition.

Take care till next time.

Sincerely,
Shane Drew

Shane Drew

Drews Sign It Pty Ltd