Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn being. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn being. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Man brought back to life after being clinically dead for 40 minutes

  • Heart ECG

An Australian man who was clinically dead for 40 minutes has been brought back to life by a brand new resuscitation technique.

Colin Fiedler, 39 from Victoria, was one of three cardiac arrest patients brought back to life after being dead for between 40 and 60 minutes at The Alfred hospital in Melbourne, using two new techniques in the emergency department.

The Alfred is testing a mechanical CPR machine, which performs constant chest compressions, and a portable heart-lung machine -- normally used in theatre -- to keep oxygen and blood flowing to the patient's brain and vital organs.

Fiedler had a heart attack and was clinically dead for 40 minutes before being revived last June.

"I'm so grateful, more than I could ever say," he told the Herald Sun.

So far, seven cardiac arrest patients have been treated with the AutoPulse machine and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

It allows doctors to diagnose the cause of the cardiac arrest and treat it, but keep blood and oxygen flowing to the vital organs and brain, which reduces the risk of permanent disability.

Fiedler is one of the three patients who were revived and returned home without disability. In the ambulance, paramedics had given him a choice of two hospitals.

"For some reason, I said The Alfred, which is pretty lucky, because they are the only one that has it," he said.

The system is available only at The Alfred, but senior intensive care physician Professor Stephen Bernard said the results from the first two years of the trial were exciting, and he hopes to eventually expand the system across Melbourne.

Click for more from news.com.au.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 4, 2013

Ballet mum being kept on her toes

BALLET Ballet

Olivia Bell with her daughter Anouska and twin sons Gabriel and Rafael. Picture: Sam Ruttyn Source: The Daily Telegraph

EVERY mum knows returning to full-time work keeps you on your toes, but Olivia Bell will be doing it en pointe when she steps onto the stage at the Sydney Opera house later this month.

Bell, a principal artist with the Australian Ballet, is about to return to performing after taking a year off following the birth of her daughter, Anouska.

With 3 1/2 year old twin boys, Gabriel and Rafael, "co-operation" is a word Bell uses frequently to cajole the boisterous duo through their day as she prepares for the Australian Ballet's triple bill Vanguard opening on April 30.

"It is a lot of organising on my behalf and also planning ahead with the ballet," Bell said. "Yes, it's a challenge but at the same time, the Australian Ballet are very accepting and very flexible at managing mothers now.

"Sadly they would have lost a number of dancers had they not put in place such a wonderful maternity policy that they have now."

Combining motherhood and a stellar classical ballet career spanning nearly two decades has helped to give Bell some life balance.

"You have to find balance in your life, it (motherhood) also brings joy and fulfils you on another level," she said.

When Bell performs in the power-packed role of Choleric, in the Balanchine classic The Four Temperaments, it will be the first time her children have seen her perform on stage. And, while she started dance classes when she was just a couple of years older than her twins, she is keen to let her children follow their hearts.

"I hope that they find, like I have, something that can be a job and a love," she said.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 14 tháng 4, 2013

Ballet mum being kept on her toes

BALLET Ballet

Olivia Bell with her daughter Anouska and twin sons Gabriel and Rafael. Picture: Sam Ruttyn Source: The Daily Telegraph

EVERY mum knows returning to full-time work keeps you on your toes, but Olivia Bell will be doing it en pointe when she steps onto the stage at the Sydney Opera house later this month.

Bell, a principal artist with the Australian Ballet, is about to return to performing after taking a year off following the birth of her daughter, Anouska.

With 3 1/2 year old twin boys, Gabriel and Rafael, "co-operation" is a word Bell uses frequently to cajole the boisterous duo through their day as she prepares for the Australian Ballet's triple bill Vanguard opening on April 30.

"It is a lot of organising on my behalf and also planning ahead with the ballet," Bell said. "Yes, it's a challenge but at the same time, the Australian Ballet are very accepting and very flexible at managing mothers now.

"Sadly they would have lost a number of dancers had they not put in place such a wonderful maternity policy that they have now."

Combining motherhood and a stellar classical ballet career spanning nearly two decades has helped to give Bell some life balance.

"You have to find balance in your life, it (motherhood) also brings joy and fulfils you on another level," she said.

When Bell performs in the power-packed role of Choleric, in the Balanchine classic The Four Temperaments, it will be the first time her children have seen her perform on stage. And, while she started dance classes when she was just a couple of years older than her twins, she is keen to let her children follow their hearts.

"I hope that they find, like I have, something that can be a job and a love," she said.


View the original article here

Ballet mum being kept on her toes

BALLET Ballet

Olivia Bell with her daughter Anouska and twin sons Gabriel and Rafael. Picture: Sam Ruttyn Source: The Daily Telegraph

EVERY mum knows returning to full-time work keeps you on your toes, but Olivia Bell will be doing it en pointe when she steps onto the stage at the Sydney Opera house later this month.

Bell, a principal artist with the Australian Ballet, is about to return to performing after taking a year off following the birth of her daughter, Anouska.

With 3 1/2 year old twin boys, Gabriel and Rafael, "co-operation" is a word Bell uses frequently to cajole the boisterous duo through their day as she prepares for the Australian Ballet's triple bill Vanguard opening on April 30.

"It is a lot of organising on my behalf and also planning ahead with the ballet," Bell said. "Yes, it's a challenge but at the same time, the Australian Ballet are very accepting and very flexible at managing mothers now.

"Sadly they would have lost a number of dancers had they not put in place such a wonderful maternity policy that they have now."

Combining motherhood and a stellar classical ballet career spanning nearly two decades has helped to give Bell some life balance.

"You have to find balance in your life, it (motherhood) also brings joy and fulfils you on another level," she said.

When Bell performs in the power-packed role of Choleric, in the Balanchine classic The Four Temperaments, it will be the first time her children have seen her perform on stage. And, while she started dance classes when she was just a couple of years older than her twins, she is keen to let her children follow their hearts.

"I hope that they find, like I have, something that can be a job and a love," she said.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

Colorado considers gun ban for people suspected of being dangerous

Legislation that would block people who are suspected of being dangerous from possessing a firearm is expected to be introduced in Colorado, setting up the next fight over gun control laws.

The bill would allow psychologists, nurses, family therapists and counselors to ask that a person's name be entered into the national background check system, prohibiting possession of a firearm for a year.

A draft of Democratic Rep. Beth McCann's proposal says the gun ban would apply to people "who pose a threat of harm."

The NRA says it's "most unconstitutional" legislation of the session.

Limits on ammunition magazines and required background checks on all gun sales already have been signed into law this year in Colorado.

McCann says she's working on the bill and will file it soon.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 11 tháng 3, 2013

The terrible damage being done to UNHCR's reputation

The UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) has long boasted impressive credentials in carrying out its important humanitarian work. Winning Nobel Peace Prizes in 1954 and 1981 for protecting and assisting refugees, UNHCR typically operates more efficiently and effectively than most other UN agencies. UNHCR’s compelling logo embodies its critical mission, picturing two human hands providing shelter for a refugee.

Now, however, UNHCR’s reputation is being badly damaged by the systemic failure of virtually the entire UN operation in Iraq.  Iranian refugees, members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (“MEK”), now residents at Camp Liberty, a vandalized, abandoned U.S. military base near Baghdad, have been subject to rocket attacks, forced to live in wretched, unsanitary conditions more like a prison than a refugee camp, and denied their property.

Worse, Martin Kobler, the bureaucrat heading the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (“UNAMI”), acts more like a paid agent of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Iraqi regime and its puppet masters in Iran than a representative of the UN’s member governments.  

UNHCR’s reputation is being badly damaged by the systemic failure of virtually the entire UN operation in Iraq.

Kobler is clearly guilty of what diplomatic circles call “clientitis”:  forgetting who he actually works for, in this case the UN Security Council, not Iraq and Iran. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon should have long ago recognized that failing to overrule Kobler, and his indifference to the MEK’s harsh and dangerous treatment, now threatens his own reputation.

In America, the MEK is overcoming an undeserved reputation after being listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the Clinton administration, which erroneously believed that appeasing Tehran’s mullahs would facilitate negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  

That mistake was repeated by Secretary of State Rice in 2008, also to appease the ayatollahs.  

By contrast, the U.S. military in Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, found the MEK peaceful and cooperative.  The Pentagon placed all residents of Camp Ashraf, their longstanding facility near the Iran-Iraq border, under U.S. protection, which of course disappeared when coalition forces withdrew.

Last year, however, Hillary Clinton correctly removed the MEK from the proscribed list, on the condition that Ashraf’s inhabitants move to Camp Liberty.  Kobler assured the MEK that Liberty’s facilities would be equivalent to Ashraf, and that UNHCR would rapidly process their applications for asylum in third countries.  That has not happened, and as long as these refugees remain in Iraq, they will be subject to threats and deadly attacks.  

Kobler and UNAMI have repeatedly impeded UNHCR’s work, making it a pawn for Tehran’s religious dictatorship to use against the MEK. So doing violates UNHCR’s 1950 founding statute, adopted by UN member governments, which mandates that its work must be “of an entirely non-political character.”  Moreover, neither Kobler nor any other UN bureaucrat has authority to compromise UNHCR’s mandate, reaffirmed last July by the Security Council in Resolution 2061, which specifically requires UNAMI to work “in coordination with” UNHCR, not as its master.  

UNHCR was intended precisely to interpose itself in circumstance such as these. By definition,refugees face hostility and the likelihood of retribution from authorities in the country they are fleeing.  And it is frequently true that refugees are unwelcome and persecuted in their countries of first asylum. The fact that Iraq’s al-Maliki regime is under the thrall of Iran here only heightens the need for UNHCR to assert its unique mandate.

Unfortunately, however, High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres has been unable or unwilling to uphold his responsibility to protect and assist the refugees, either at Camp Liberty or by finding them asylum in third countries.  

Ironically, Guterres has asked for significantly greater funding for UNHCR’s work on MEK issues in 2013, which is hard to understand given how little UNHCR is actually doing on behalf of the 3,000-plus asylum-seekers involved.

This dispute may initially sound like simply another exercise in bureaucratic turf-fighting within the UN system, but the global implications are actually far broader. If Iran and Iraq’s al-Maliki regime succeed in intimidating and impeding UNHCR, thereby politicizing its work, the consequences risk devastating the UN’s ability to provide impartial international assistance.  

All UN members should be alarmed at this prospect, since no one can predict where UNHCR or other UN humanitarian agencies will be needed next. With the UN’s political decision-making bodies already largely dysfunctional, it would be a profound loss for the UN’s humanitarian agencies to suffer the same fate.

Moreover, non-governmental organizations (“NGO’s”) which provide humanitarian assistance should also be appalled at Kobler’s damage to UNHCR’s mandate, and the damage the agency is doing to itself.  Whether or not a particular NGO does refugee work, is present in the Middle East, or tries to avoid politicization, NGO’s generally will find their humanitarian status jeopardized by the gross politicization that Iran and Iraq are wreaking.

Clearly, High Commissioner Guterres has to stand up on his hind legs and demand that UNHCR be allowed to provide protection and assistance to the refugees at Camp Liberty and rapidly process their asylum requests, no matter what Kobler, al-Maliki or Tehran’s ayatollahs want.  UN members and NGO’s should likewise insist that UNHCR be allowed to operate according to its mandate, and urge Secretary General Ban not to turn a blind eye.  

And the U.S. Congress, in a time of incredibly tight budgets for both domestic and military programs, should look very carefully at what the UN system as a whole is doing  --  and more importantly failing to do  --  in Iraq. If nothing else works, restricting American contributions to UN agencies always gets their attention.

John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a Fox News contributor. He is a senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 7 tháng 3, 2013

'Showing up' at work is not what matters most when it comes to being productive

Woody Allen once famously said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” the meaning of which, I always understood to be that if you’ve at least made the effort to appear in the flesh, you were well on your way to accomplishing your goal.  Logic would dictate that the same rate of success cannot be achieved virtually by videochat, Skype, telephone or via email or text.  
Perhaps Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer was embracing her inner "Woodman" when she announced her ban on working from home for Yahoo employees.

There is certainly tremendous value to be gained from face-to-face interaction in the workplace. In-person communications play a role in building relationships, fostering collaboration, hatching big ideas and solving problems. In many business circles, a firm handshake and direct eye contact can speak volumes, not to mention serve as a barometer of sorts for character and trust.  Side-by-side, people share ideas, confidences, dreams and aspirations…the soft stuff that can create hard returns.

The benefits of working at the office are well established. However, it is also important to keep in mind that just being there is not the same as being there

Consider this typical 2013 scenario: A meeting takes place in an office conference room. Four or five employees who work at the company along with an outside consultant or two are convened to discuss and solve an issue. 

The lights are dimmed for the slide presentation. The presenter is practically doing calisthenics at the front of the room to capture and hold the attention of the others, though he can already see two meeting participants on their iPhones, one on her laptop checking her Facebook and another has just been texted.  

Yes, everyone is physically there in that room, but how many are actually being there? How much productivity is really taking place given the distractions?  

Being there is as much a state of mind as it is a state of physicality.  While it is possible to have both, there’s no guarantee employers get the mind when they get the body.  Who is to say a disciplined, engaged employee working from home can’t be there for the employer?    

In my 25+ year career, I have worked both at the office and from home. Along the way, I have collaborated with many very talented colleagues. It didn’t matter to me, my partners, our employer, our clients or the success of our projects where we were sitting day-to-day, as long as we met face-to-face regularly, talked frequently, commented on and enhanced each other’s work products and were 100% engaged in the delivery of our best.  If anyone's attention strayed, it showed.

Considering how the pendulum has swung in the last twenty years from business dress to business casual, from nine-to-five to telecommuting, it seems likely that a middle ground will soon be identified that allows for  valuable, contributing employees—those who are at the office everyday and those whom, for a myriad of reasons, work from home.  

As CEO, Ms. Mayer has put a stake in the ground for herself and started a new iteration of the conversation about multi-tasking, focus and what is required to deliver the kind of innovation that will drive Yahoo forward. 

She has done a service for her company as well as other businesses by sounding a wake-up call about the importance of being there at work.  And for now at Yahoo, showing up is part of the deal.    

Sandra Stahl is a partner in a PR and marketing communications firm. She also writes for leading industry and national outlets.


View the original article here

US general reveals he sought far more troops in Afghanistan than being considered

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East testified Tuesday that he initially envisioned keeping 20,000 troops in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 end of combat operations, revealing a recommendation that would be sharply at odds with the administration's policy. 

Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command -- who reportedly is being pushed out early by the Obama administration -- testified Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

He said he wanted to keep 13,600 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, with NATO making up the rest. 

"We have to send a message of commitment," Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

But the number is far more than the White House would like. U.S. and NATO leaders said last month that they may keep between 8,000 and 12,000 troops in Afghanistan after combat troops leave by Dec. 31, 2014. At a NATO meeting in Brussels, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the range being considered, but noted that no final decision has been made. 

Fox News has learned that the administration's desired post-2014 troop presence does not exceed 10,000. 

It is rare for senior military officials to reveal their personal White House recommendations in congressional testimony. Doing so potentially puts the White House in the uncomfortable position of having to acknowledge they decided against the recommendation of military leadership. 

Earlier this year, it was reported that Mattis was pushed out of his CENTCOM post over disagreements with Obama administration officials over policies toward Iran and other international issues. The Pentagon, though, strongly disputed the claim. 

In his testimony Tuesday, Mattis also said the current sanctions and diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities are not working. 

Mattis said Iran is at the point of "enriching uranium beyond and plausible peaceful purpose."  He called 2013 the "year of reckoning" with regards to Iran's nuclear program. 

The comment comes after Vice President Biden, speaking at the annual conference for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said President Obama is "not bluffing" on the threat of using military force to stop Iran's nuclear program. 

Fox News' Justin Fishel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here