Anorexic children and teenagers will be joined in hospital by their families in an Australian-first attempt to break the cycle of eating disorders, Sydney Morning Herald reports. The Children's Hospital at Westmead has opened two family units that permits parents, carers and siblings to stay with the patient for about two to four weeks of intensive treatment. Such a breakthrough for Australia. This has never happened before, ever. I'm impressed, aren't you?
Has the hospital become a service apartment or what? The hospital even provides a kitchen and a dining table for families to prepare meals and eat together. That's something new. I've never heard of any hospital having any of these facilities before. Back where I was from in Malaysia, we're only allowed to visit during visiting hours. Other than visiting hours, there's no such thing as staying with the patient. And there's no such facilities as a kitchen and dining table to prepare meals and eat meals together. Meals were prepared by the hospital's canteen chefs. I'm surprised.
This is good in a way. This new information that I've received from this news article informs me that a hospital that gives this kind of facilities exists. Now when you turn anorexic or if our children turn anorexic, when we have one that is or if you have one, we'll know where to admit them, where we are able to watch over our children in the hospital.
The way the news was written works so well as news. Special units were built in the Westmead's Children Hospital just for their family members to stay for two to four weeks of intensive treatment and providing kitchens and dining tables for the families to prepare meals and eat meals together. The advantages of these actions done were stated, where there was a high increase in admissions and a patient's experience who moved from northern NSW to Westmead Children hospital who has total recovery from illness. Proof was proven that this approach of allowing families to stay with patients for two to four weeks of intensive treatment and eating meals together helps the patient recover. A technique to solve the anorexia other than treatments, has been disclosed.
Though I personally believe pictures and videos of the new units built should be shown to convince the public how beautiful the place has been built and the environment itself is an appropriate environment for their children to be admitted. But, that's of course one minor factor. Overall, the news works out fine for me.
What's your VIEW on this? A good story that works as news? Does it convince you enough? Has this news interest you at some point? I know it did for me. "A plus plus" for me.
Analyzed From: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/livein-families-to-help-anorexia-patients-20090907-fees.html
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Beware of nurses holding botox parties
Nurses are taking a high risk on performing illegal practices like Botox, wrinkle-filler and fat-dissolving injections without any supervision, in beauty salons and Botox parties, Sydney Morning Herald reports. Are you sure about that?
Botox parties are well known in America. One good example would be Michael Jackson? Didn't he do botox at one point? Sure he did it privately, nevertheless, botox is a hit in America. Everyone seems to be doing it. Same as Korea and Japan, especially Korea.
One main reason that groups of people are gathered together in a party with a glass of wine and upper lip injection is because a patient often requires a certain amount of Botox injection to complete the work they need to be done. Plus, it's done at a person's home. Doctors claim that the party setting relaxes patients and helps them easier to handle the injection process. Well, that's what Botox Clinic claimed.
Though I've never heard of nurses peforming botox parties illegally, that's just not fair for the doctor's side. Usually, it's always the doctors hosting botox parties, never nurses. Nurses are only assistants to doctors but doctors are specialized and they have a certificate for it. Nurses should not perform it illegally but legally in a doctor's presence. Nurses are midwifes. Unlike doctors, they've had years of training from internship to residence to surgeon?
Still, I believe it's rather of a peculiar yet interesting news, one that has not been told before. It's something of rather new information that affects the public as the reporter for this story is sending an alert signal to them to beware of nurses performing illegal practices in beauty salons and Botox parties, in that they may not be affected as well. Therefore, this definitely works as news for me at least.
Published as a two-way sort of perspective; the doctor's perspective and the nurse's perspective, such good feature. In a doctor's perspective, it states the doctor's worries where there were complaints by the Cosmetics Physician Society. This is included as news as it is informing the public the doctor's worries for the public in that the public should not do the Botox unless there is proper supervision by a doctor. However, the reporter should have included the dangers that might happen from a doctor's perspective if these practices were done without supervision.
In the nurse's perspective, the reporter stated statements of the nurses standing up for their rights and that there is no regulation where a nurse needs to b supervised by a doctor when prescribing these medicines. This part could be included as news as it states of the nurses' perspective of view regarding this matter since they are the ones being affected, in response to the doctor's perspective.
However, I do believe that what can be done should be included. Readers can read and say yes so what should we do about it. When you disclose a conflict, people want to know what can be done about it. Therefore, it would be a better story if the reporter could disclose what can be done.
Works as news where two sides of the stories were mentioned. Such a wide angle to look at. I'm proud. But, it's just my opinion. I don't know about yours though.
Still, I want to strongly agree with the doctors that nurses should not perform botox injections in parties illegally without a doctor's supervision. That's way too dangerous. What if it were to cause death or a horrible disease or a mistake in a face feature to make it look like a monster? No no no, I don't ever wanna go there. Call me superstitious, that's just my view.
Article Analyzed Upon: http://www.smh.com.au/national/nurses-hold-botox-parties-20090822-eue9.html
Botox parties are well known in America. One good example would be Michael Jackson? Didn't he do botox at one point? Sure he did it privately, nevertheless, botox is a hit in America. Everyone seems to be doing it. Same as Korea and Japan, especially Korea.
One main reason that groups of people are gathered together in a party with a glass of wine and upper lip injection is because a patient often requires a certain amount of Botox injection to complete the work they need to be done. Plus, it's done at a person's home. Doctors claim that the party setting relaxes patients and helps them easier to handle the injection process. Well, that's what Botox Clinic claimed.
Though I've never heard of nurses peforming botox parties illegally, that's just not fair for the doctor's side. Usually, it's always the doctors hosting botox parties, never nurses. Nurses are only assistants to doctors but doctors are specialized and they have a certificate for it. Nurses should not perform it illegally but legally in a doctor's presence. Nurses are midwifes. Unlike doctors, they've had years of training from internship to residence to surgeon?
Still, I believe it's rather of a peculiar yet interesting news, one that has not been told before. It's something of rather new information that affects the public as the reporter for this story is sending an alert signal to them to beware of nurses performing illegal practices in beauty salons and Botox parties, in that they may not be affected as well. Therefore, this definitely works as news for me at least.
Published as a two-way sort of perspective; the doctor's perspective and the nurse's perspective, such good feature. In a doctor's perspective, it states the doctor's worries where there were complaints by the Cosmetics Physician Society. This is included as news as it is informing the public the doctor's worries for the public in that the public should not do the Botox unless there is proper supervision by a doctor. However, the reporter should have included the dangers that might happen from a doctor's perspective if these practices were done without supervision.
In the nurse's perspective, the reporter stated statements of the nurses standing up for their rights and that there is no regulation where a nurse needs to b supervised by a doctor when prescribing these medicines. This part could be included as news as it states of the nurses' perspective of view regarding this matter since they are the ones being affected, in response to the doctor's perspective.
However, I do believe that what can be done should be included. Readers can read and say yes so what should we do about it. When you disclose a conflict, people want to know what can be done about it. Therefore, it would be a better story if the reporter could disclose what can be done.
Works as news where two sides of the stories were mentioned. Such a wide angle to look at. I'm proud. But, it's just my opinion. I don't know about yours though.
Still, I want to strongly agree with the doctors that nurses should not perform botox injections in parties illegally without a doctor's supervision. That's way too dangerous. What if it were to cause death or a horrible disease or a mistake in a face feature to make it look like a monster? No no no, I don't ever wanna go there. Call me superstitious, that's just my view.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Lupin Beans A Danger
Sydney Morning Herald reported that low GI can beat fatal. Authorities have warned that a bean that is popular for its low GI properties can be deadly if it is not prepared in the right way. It seems that women in WA were poisoned by this low GI lupin bean. Bean alert on that.
I've never heard of lupin beans being poisonous before. Does it exist? I googled it and guess what I found? It turns out that Lupin beans could be poisonous if it is not treated properly. Poison depends on which plant you eat. Lupinine is an alkaloid and the chief poison of lupines, containing dangerous enzyme inhibitors. Apparently. the typical poisonous scenario of these beans happen to livestock or children. Knowing the danger to it, shouldn't we all be afraid now of consuming these beans? At least I am.
Okay, that's something to know about. I'm contented with how the news is presented. Still, the warning was published from the Medical Journal of Australia?! That's plagiarism in a way. Well ... the journalist did mention it was taken from the Medical Journal of Australia but still the information he or she has used was still derived from a Journal and not from an actual source who mentioned it. That seems fairly low information. Not much creativity.
Information of the beans being poisonous was a new fact disclosed. The side effects of the beans supported this fact. The quotes from doctors supported this fact. But the reasons why were not stated. I can know and be aware that the beans are poisonous with the effects that has happened to two WA women who ate it that gave them poison to be admitted to the hospital. But, why is this happening? I'm not convinced enough yet. I don't know why this is happening and I want to know why and what can be done about it. Is the Government going to do something about it? What's the Health Minister's view on this?
Sure it's news cause it's something new. But it seems too shallow of a news for me. Don't you think there should be more into-depth information regarding this matter? It's disappointing enough for me.
Analyzed From: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/lowgi-bean-can-be-fatal-20090803-e6pw.html
I've never heard of lupin beans being poisonous before. Does it exist? I googled it and guess what I found? It turns out that Lupin beans could be poisonous if it is not treated properly. Poison depends on which plant you eat. Lupinine is an alkaloid and the chief poison of lupines, containing dangerous enzyme inhibitors. Apparently. the typical poisonous scenario of these beans happen to livestock or children. Knowing the danger to it, shouldn't we all be afraid now of consuming these beans? At least I am.
Okay, that's something to know about. I'm contented with how the news is presented. Still, the warning was published from the Medical Journal of Australia?! That's plagiarism in a way. Well ... the journalist did mention it was taken from the Medical Journal of Australia but still the information he or she has used was still derived from a Journal and not from an actual source who mentioned it. That seems fairly low information. Not much creativity.
Information of the beans being poisonous was a new fact disclosed. The side effects of the beans supported this fact. The quotes from doctors supported this fact. But the reasons why were not stated. I can know and be aware that the beans are poisonous with the effects that has happened to two WA women who ate it that gave them poison to be admitted to the hospital. But, why is this happening? I'm not convinced enough yet. I don't know why this is happening and I want to know why and what can be done about it. Is the Government going to do something about it? What's the Health Minister's view on this?
Sure it's news cause it's something new. But it seems too shallow of a news for me. Don't you think there should be more into-depth information regarding this matter? It's disappointing enough for me.
Analyzed From: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/lowgi-bean-can-be-fatal-20090803-e6pw.html
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Special Psychiatric Unit For The Young
Does this help the public or is it a waste of time? Do I think the Government has done an excellent job to form a special psychiatric unit just for the young? Yes, I do. Why you say? Hmm ... tough question there. Well, that's just cause it helps the psychiatrists and the nurses able to control the situation even much better. Like they say, young people are yappy and hyper compared to the older ones.
Australia's done some breakthrough here. I've never heard of anything like a special psychiatric unit just for the young except in America. I don't know about the other places though. So far, there's none except America. The health industry in Australia surely has improved from time to time.
No matter how, I have to disagree that young people should be treated differently than the older ones. It simply isn't fair. Shouldn't everyone be treated the same way as everyone regardless of the circumstances? Wouldn't they feel offended in those circumstances? Young people may be underage but that doesn't give the authorities the right to treat them differently. Everyone should be treated equally the same. I'm always a believer for treating everyone equally.
Nevertheless, is it news? Definitely. It's something new that a special psychiatric unit has been built for the young lads. Still, it'd be better if pictures of the new unit was taken and a few quotes from the parents of these children of their views that a special psychiatric unit has been built for their children.
Informative but improvements are required.
Analyzed From: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/special-psychiatric-unit-opens-for-young-20090814-el7h.html
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Drinking Causes Cancer?
Regular drinkers were reported to face a higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer. A new research was reported to have found that individuals who consume more than one alcoholic drink daily face a higher risk of developing six types of cancer.
I thought cancer was developed when you age? Or if your ancestral line had it?! Or if you had issues with your immune systems which basically includes people who have had organ transplants and take drugs to stop organ rejection, have HIV or AIDS or born with rare medical syndromes that affect their immunity. Or viruses or bacterial infection?! Well, that's what Cancer Research UK informed?!
I researched it of course and I found a few findings.
NIAAA states that a strong association exists between alcohol use and cancers of the esophagus, pharynx, and mouth, whereas a more controversial association links alcohol with liver, breast, and colorectal cancers.
Okay, so it's been proven to be true that drinkers face greater cancer risk. I never knew that but now I know. Shouldn't I be extra cautious now when I drink too much alcohol?
In this article analyzed upon, research was done to have found 3571 participants – all men ages 35 to 70, but what about the women?! How can a story only include a study that was done on men and assume that it happens to everyone?! It may work differently on women though.
Moreover, the study was done in 1980 and released in a Journal recently and that's not of high news value. It shows that the journalist of this article is merely taking facts from a Canadian Study stated in the Journal "Cancer Detection and Prevention" and not putting much effort unto finding real facts from real people in Australia to prove this fact. No cases in Australia have been proven like say a source who proved that she drank too much alcohol that caused her a high risk of being diagnosed with cancer!!!
I do not call this news. I call this a fact-given story. Surely no one may not have known that regular drinks face a higher risk of cancer. It's new and because of that, is regarded as news to the public. But, still news value seem really low and I simply disagree that this article should be published otherwise.
Sorry to say, I call this a fact-given story that deserves more improvement if it was to be published. Everything was based on studies. I could find the facts myself through that journal. What difference does it make?!
Analyzed From: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/drinkers-face-greater-cancer-risk-20090805-ea2s.html
I thought cancer was developed when you age? Or if your ancestral line had it?! Or if you had issues with your immune systems which basically includes people who have had organ transplants and take drugs to stop organ rejection, have HIV or AIDS or born with rare medical syndromes that affect their immunity. Or viruses or bacterial infection?! Well, that's what Cancer Research UK informed?!
I researched it of course and I found a few findings.
NIAAA states that a strong association exists between alcohol use and cancers of the esophagus, pharynx, and mouth, whereas a more controversial association links alcohol with liver, breast, and colorectal cancers.
Okay, so it's been proven to be true that drinkers face greater cancer risk. I never knew that but now I know. Shouldn't I be extra cautious now when I drink too much alcohol?
In this article analyzed upon, research was done to have found 3571 participants – all men ages 35 to 70, but what about the women?! How can a story only include a study that was done on men and assume that it happens to everyone?! It may work differently on women though.
Moreover, the study was done in 1980 and released in a Journal recently and that's not of high news value. It shows that the journalist of this article is merely taking facts from a Canadian Study stated in the Journal "Cancer Detection and Prevention" and not putting much effort unto finding real facts from real people in Australia to prove this fact. No cases in Australia have been proven like say a source who proved that she drank too much alcohol that caused her a high risk of being diagnosed with cancer!!!
I do not call this news. I call this a fact-given story. Surely no one may not have known that regular drinks face a higher risk of cancer. It's new and because of that, is regarded as news to the public. But, still news value seem really low and I simply disagree that this article should be published otherwise.
Sorry to say, I call this a fact-given story that deserves more improvement if it was to be published. Everything was based on studies. I could find the facts myself through that journal. What difference does it make?!
Analyzed From: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/drinkers-face-greater-cancer-risk-20090805-ea2s.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
