Slashdot Mirror
Treating the Dead
FlyByPC writes "According to a NewsWeek article, oxygen deprivation doesn't kill patients as much as the resumption of oxygen does. This discovery could bring about new ways of resuscitating people whose hearts have stopped."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Parrots have recently been discovered to follow this exact same pattern during periods of deprivation from their beloved fjords.
I remember reading somewhere in the last few months (possibly here on /.) that the new preferred version of CPR was 10 compressions to one breath, as opposed to the traditional 3. More compressions = less oxygen. . .
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
This reminds me of Freezing Frogs. Basically they fill their cells with glucose, and are actually able to freeze themselves for the entire winter and then wake up in the spring. I remember a radio show where they were saying you could freeze them over and over again, without any adverse effects.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"I recall reading an article in Science News late 70's or early 80's about some research showing it was the blood vessels in the brain spasming that lead to brain death."
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
"It does not do any good to have a working body if I am still brain dead at the end of the process."
Why not? George Bush choked to death on a pretzel a few years ago, and nobody's noticed the difference ...
It even makes sense to me why sudden resumption of oxygen should be lethal. Oxygen is extremely toxic and aerobic organism, such as ourselves, had to evolve complex cellular machinery in order to utilize it for metabolic efficiency, while keeping the oxygen from damaging cellular structures, especially DNA. The sudden surge in oxygenated blood would probably overload this system. Apoptosis in this case may be a protective step by killing the cell before its DNA becomes damaged and possibly cancerous. Thus, flooding the heart with oxygen causes the whole heart to "take one for the team," and shut down completely.
The discovery that the cells are still alive, and can be revived with special treatment is extremely encouraging for the development of better techniques.
Don't hold your breath...
And if you do, don't stop.
Balance deprivation does not kill you, it's the sudden restoration of terra firma that does.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I forget the actual numbers, but the idea was really to simplify the procedure. It's more important to get blood flowing through the heart than do the breaths, so this way inexperienced people spend less time fumbling around with the breaths and more time pumping.
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
Yeah, reprofusion injury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reperfusion_injury.
I wrote about that >20 years ago, when I was writing for a biotechnology newsletter. After >20 years of research, they understand it much better today.
Every surgeon knows about reprofusion injury. You can go to Barnes & Noble and look it up in a surgery textbook.
I don't understand why Newsweek says it's new or that it wasn't known in 1993. I assume those doctors came up with some new detail in its treatment.
anyone else get the world of warcraft ad above this story?
with the panel that reads "RESURRECT FOR FREE"?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes, actually, they are good American names.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Other arguments against socialized medicine include: years-long queues for certain sorts of procedures (which aren't strictly Necessary, but may be Incredibly Useful), the sheer cost of paying for it, and a tricky sort of little moral hazard problem with implications against freedom. (Specifically, if the government has to pay for your health care, then a - you're probably less likely to try and take preventative measures to maintain your health since the Government will deal with it and you won't have to pay for it as heavily as you would otherwise; this contributes to a larger problem: b- being unhealthy means more money out of the federal budget, so the government has a big incentive to make unhealthy activity illegals, and the next thing you know, they could be forcing tofu cubes down your throat screaming "it's good for you!!!!!" when all you want is a hamburger, a simple hamburger, for the love of all that is holy - well, figuratively speaking, anyway; you get the idea.)
The unarguable fact that's in support of socialized medicine is "it will make certain peoples' lives better". It will also probably make people's lives worse - rich people, healthy people who pay taxes, and Future people. For typical middle-class people, it's less than clear.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I remember a radio show where they were saying you could freeze them over and over again, without any adverse effects.
I'm certain they would be fairly pissed-off.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Do it slowly enough and they never notice. It was when I tried to microwave one that it got really pissed and blew up on me.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.