Stig Östlund

söndag, december 31, 2017

The New Sweden

Denna gång i Rinkeby (ung. vid 04.30-tiden i natt polisen upptäckt ihjälskjuten man).
Kommentar förväntas från statsministern i det skjutglada landet:
" Detta är allvarligt".

The New Sweden


The New Sweden

Efter flera rapporter runt om i landet om ungdomar som skjutit fyrverkerier mot privatpersoner, byggnader och blåljuspersonal vädjar polisen till föräldrar att hålla koll på sina barn. 

Tips

Ämnet svenska:
www.tt.se/tt-spraket
www.synonymer.se

För mobilen:
Bibliotekets talböcker:
Appen "biblio"
SAOL:
Appen "svensk ordbok"





lördag, december 30, 2017

Oj då, stillastående tåg pga strömavbrott; vem kunde tänka sig nåt sånt (?)




All tågtrafik genom centrala Stockholm står stilla efter ett strömavbrott. 




Artist: Ben Giles


Artist: Janet Hansen
“The text argues that we're really not all that smart. We know far less than we think we do as individuals because we treat knowledge in the minds of others as if it were our own. Janet zeroed in on a classic symbol of erudition and swiftly, deftly, cut it down to size.” — Matt Dorfman, art director




The High Price of Failing America’s Costliest Patients
Artist: Jody Barton


För några sekunder förnamn jag våren (den efterlängtade) i går.








Vårdag vid havet: skumvita krås
kring kobbar kopparröda,
en glödvit sol - och tärna och mås
och trutar som träta om föda.




Vårdag vid havet: alfågelsträck,

knipor och prunkande ejder,
stenar som vitnat av dun och träck
i vingade älskogsfejder.

Vårdag vid havet: sidenblå,

fria, förtunande fjärdar
brusa och glittra och övergå
i rymdens gyllende världar.

Einar Malm (1900-1988)

Oj då


Rysslands tidigare president Boris Jeltsin försökte lägga armen runt  Storbritanniens drottning när de träffades år 1992. Det visar brittiska myndighetsdokument som offentliggjorts, rapporterar The Telegraph.
Elizabettan

fredag, december 29, 2017

Ministern konstaterar

Inrikesminister Morgan Johansson (S) menar att attacken mot en polisbil i Malmö är ”mycket allvarlig”.

Jasså
Blinda på väg mot bergets topp






Nepals regering har stiftat en lag som förbjuder blinda att försöka nå Mount Eerest topp.

Francos dotter Carmen avled i går 91 år gammal


Arkivbild

torsdag, december 28, 2017

Inte underligt moderaterna går starkt framåt

  Kommunstyrelsens ordförande i Marie-  
  stad har polisanmält två ensamkommande
  asylsökande för bidragsbrott sedan    
  de fått sina åldrar uppskrivna.       
                                        
  -Någonstans måste vi förstå att det   
  här tar stora resurser från andra,    
  säger ordföranden, Johan Abrahamsson  
  (M) till Mariestads-Tidningen. Han    
  hänvisar till att kommunens kostnader 
  är högre för de ensamkommande.        
                                        
  Anmälan bygger på ett tidigare beslut 
  om att polisanmäla personer som får   
  åldern uppskriven om de kan misstänkas
  för brott. Övriga allianspartier tar  
      avstånd från Abrahamssons anmälan./Text TV

Boktips

Bok om ben ger kött på benen

Benboken. Om frakturer och forskning

160 sidor.

Författare: Per Aspenberg

Förlag: Karneval förlag; 2017

ISBN 978-91-88729-05-7




Pelle Gustafson

docent, chefläkare Löf, medicinsk redaktör Läkartidningen, Stockholm

Olle Svensson

professor emeritus, ortopediska kliniken, Norrlands universitetssjukhus, Umeå



Läkartidningen. 2017;114:EYID

Värt att veta om våra ben.

Ben är en elegant komposit, starkare än stål per viktenhet. Konstruktionen är åtskilliga hundra miljoner år gammal. Till skillnad från mjukvävnad kan ben läka utan ärrbildning. Ben har flera olika mekanismer för att reparera sig självt. Skelettet i våra kroppar är sällan äldre än några år.

I »Benboken« ger Per Aspenberg, senior professor i ortopedi i Linköping, en exposé över hur detta hänger ihop och går till. Boken spänner över en tidsrymd av drygt 500 miljoner år, och innefattar kärlek, vad ben är, kungliga frakturer, benomvandling, benläkning, förflyttning av ben, benforskare, forskningens villkor, ledprotesförankring och läkemedel som kan påverka frakturläkning.

Boken är elegant skriven, illustrerad och redigerad. Efter en inledande del om vad utvecklingen av ben betytt för djurs möjligheter att röra sig, får läsaren följa utvecklingen fram till vad vi idag vet (och inte vet) om ben och läkning av ben. I boken beskrivs inte bara torra fakta, utan i små exkursioner från huvudvägen också personer, framgångar, bakslag, vetenskapsteori och duster med läkemedelsmyndigheter. I ett kapitel diskuteras placebo och författaren argumenterar här skarpsinnigt att placebo är en chimär, som till stora delar kan förklaras av statistiska fenomen som regression mot medelvärdet, sjukdomars naturalhistoria och psykologiska fenomen.

Det har länge hetat att ben läker i en förutbestämd takt, vilken inte kan påskyndas, bara fördröjas. Detta påstående håller nu på att omvärderas i och med att parathormonets roll i frakturläkningsprocessen börjar klarläggas. Svårigheterna att bedriva forskning inom detta område illustreras väl.

Benboken är en imponerande översikt som, ovanligt nog, med stor behållning kan läsas av flera olika läsekretsar. Den kan varmt rekommenderas till så skilda grupper som gymnasieelever som vill förstå ben, en populärvetenskapligt intresserad allmänhet, studenter på grundutbildningar, intresserade läkare som vill hålla sig uppdaterade om ben, men också till ortopeder som vill uppdatera sina kunskaper om benvävnad och frakturläkning.

K2



Rooftopping



Klipp från en artikel om Sverige i dagens New York Times (en artikel att som svensk vara mycket stolt över).










In the United States, where most people depend on employers for health insurance, losing a job can trigger a descent to catastrophic depths. It makes workers reluctant to leave jobs to forge potentially more lucrative careers. It makes unions inclined to protect jobs above all else.
Yet in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, governments provide health care along with free education. They pay generous unemployment benefits, while employers finance extensive job training programs. Unions generally embrace automation as a competitive advantage that makes jobs more secure.
Making the United States more like Scandinavia would entail costs that collide with the tax-cutting fervor that has dominated American politics in recent decades.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland all spend more than 27 percent of their annual economic output on government services to help jobless people and other vulnerable groups, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The United States devotes less than 20 percent of its economy to such programs.








Safety Nets Compared

Scandinavian countries are among the biggest spenders on unemployment benefits, health care and parental leave, whereas the United States spends less than the average on its social safety nets.



Public social spending as a share of G.D.P.
France
31.5
%
Finland
30.8
Belgium
29.0
Italy
28.9
Denmark
28.7
Austria
27.8
Sweden
27.1
Greece
27.0
Germany
25.3
Norway
25.1
Spain
24.6
Portugal
24.1
Japan
23.1
Slovenia
22.8
Netherlands
22.0
Luxembourg
21.8
Britain
21.5
O.E.C.D. avg.
21.0
Hungary
20.6
Poland
20.2
Switzerland
19.7
New Zealand
19.5
Czech Republic
19.4
United States
19.3
Australia
19.1
Slovakia
18.6
Estonia
17.4
Canada
17.2
Ireland
16.1
Israel
16.1
Iceland
15.2
Latvia
14.5
Turkey
13.5
Chile
11.2
South Korea
10.4
Mexico
7.5

Boktips












The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President





Bokus: inbunden, engelska, 2017-10-03, ISBN 9781250179456. 226:- kr

President Trump’s Mental Health — Is It Morally Permissible for Psychiatrists to Comment?

Donald John Trump, född 14 juni 1946 i New York,  USA:s 45:e och nuvarande president. Han har tidigare varit verksam som affärsman, företagsledare och tv-personlighet. Född14 juni 1946 (ålder 71), Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, New York, USAFörmögenhet3,1 miljarder USD (2017) Forbes. MakaMelania Trump (från 2005), Marla Maples (1993–1999), Ivana Trump (1977–1992) /Wikipedia







The New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. eller NEJM) är en engelskspråkig medicinsk tidskrift som är referentgranskad och som publiceras av Massachusetts Medical Society. Det är den äldsta kontinuerligt utgivna medicinska tidskriften i världen och är den mest lästa, citerade och inflytelserika allmänna medicinska tidskriften i världen.


Perspective

President Trump’s Mental Health — Is It Morally Permissible for Psychiatrists to Comment?

Claire Pouncey, M.D., Ph.D.
December 27, 2017DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1714828


Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist who was recently elected governor of Virginia, distinguished himself during the gubernatorial race by calling President Donald Trump a “narcissistic maniac.” Northam drew criticism for using medical diagnostic terminology to denounce a political figure, though he defended the terminology as “medically correct.”The term isn’t medically correct — “maniac” has not been a medical term for well over a century — but Northam’s use of it in either medical or political contexts would not be considered unethical by his professional peers.
For psychiatrists, however, the situation is different, which is why many psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have refrained from speculating about Trump’s mental health. But in October, psychiatrist Bandy Lee published a collection of essays written largely by mental health professionals who believe that their training and expertise compel them to warn the public of the dangers they see in Trump’s psychology. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President rejects the position of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that psychiatrists should never offer diagnostic opinions about persons they have not personally examined. Past APA president Jeffrey Lieberman has written in Psychiatric Newsthat the book is “not a serious, scholarly, civic-minded work, but simply tawdry, indulgent, fatuous tabloid psychiatry.” I believe it shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly.
To understand why thoughtful, experienced, well-meaning mental health professionals would be condemned by their professional association leadership, one needs to understand the history of the Goldwater rule. U.S. psychiatrists follow the same code of ethics as other physicians, the Principles of Medical Ethics articulated by the American Medical Association (AMA). Section 7 of that code reads, “A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.”3The point of Section 7 is that all physicians have a duty to promote public health and safety. The AMA principle does not specifically commit physicians to whistle-blowing or impose a “duty to warn” of the sort Lee and her colleagues take themselves to have, but presumably it commits a physician with a concern about local environmental pollutants, safety in schools, infectious disease transmission, or other public dangers to notifying others of the risk. Protecting public health and safety is part of the ethical commitment we make as physicians.
In 1973, the APA convened an ethics committee for the first time and charged it with annotating the AMA ethics code with considerations uniquely relevant to psychiatric practice. Part of the impetus for these annotations was the APA’s embarrassment in 1964, after Fact magazine published an informal survey of psychiatrists’ opinions about the mental stability of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who, among other concerns, had made radical statements about the use of nuclear weapons. The “Goldwater rule” is Section 7.3 of the APA ethics code, one annotation of Section 7 of the AMA code. It specifies that “a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”4For a few decades, the Goldwater rule received almost no attention in the professional literature — the Fact embarrassment was long past by the time the annotation was published, and the threat of nuclear war had receded from public awareness. Psychiatrists who spoke to the press about mass shooters, erratic artists, and other public figures simply issued disclaimers such as “I haven’t examined this person” and then went ahead and made their remarks.
The relevance of the Goldwater rule has spiked in the past 2 years in the setting of Trump’s candidacy and now presidency. There are good reasons to respect the intention of Section 7.3. Most psychiatrists want to teach the public about the myriad presentations of mental illness and character pathology and not to oversimplify, stigmatize, promote stereotypes, or disparage the persons whose mental health we work to improve. We believe that people with mental illness can flourish and contribute to our communities, and on the flip side, we do not assume that everyone who behaves erratically or earns public disapprobation is mentally ill. Most psychiatrists do not think we have superpowers that let us know the inner thoughts and psychological workings of strangers. Section 7.3 reminds us to remain humble about the claims we can reasonably make and to present ourselves responsibly for the sake of our patients and our profession.
Increasingly, however, some psychiatrists are expressing professional concern about Trump’s public remarks and behaviors and what they mean for public safety. Lee and her coauthors clearly take themselves to be fulfilling the moral obligation of Section 7 by using their specific expertise as mental health professionals.
The Goldwater rule, like the other APA annotations, is meant to clarify a principle of medical ethics, not contradict it. Yet in March 2017, shortly after Trump’s presidential inauguration, the APA broadened the rule to apply to “any opinion on the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry”— an expansion that would silence psychiatrists who want to honor the moral obligation of Section 7 by educating the public about the dangers they see in Trump’s psychology. The problem is that psychiatric diagnostic terminology has been colloquialized, so the public and the press use it to describe Trump, but when a psychiatrist does so, use of the same words is considered to be a formal diagnosis (at least in the eyes of the APA). As a result, psychiatrists are the only members of the citizenry who may not express concern about the mental health of the president using psychiatric diagnostic terminology.
The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump challenges the APA position that a psychiatrist cannot know enough about a person she has not interviewed to formulate a diagnostic impression. Contrary to the APA, a physician who has not formally evaluated a patient is not making a diagnosis in the medical sense, but rather using diagnostic speculation and terminology informally, with the benefit of education. That characterization applies to the orthopedist or physical medicine specialist speculating on the knee injury of the football player limping off the field and the dermatologist wincing at a stranger’s melanoma in the grocery line as well as to the psychiatrist interpreting Trump’s public statements. Physicians don’t stop knowing what we know when we leave the clinic. Psychiatric terminology has become part of the common parlance, and the authors in Dangerous Case describe and define that terminology much better than, say, Ralph Northam. The question is whether psychiatrists are the ones we should hear it from.
I expect that the APA will denounce and dismiss this book and its authors, but I encourage others not to do so. Dangerous Case is unapologetically provocative and political, and the authors clearly take themselves to be contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, as the AMA (and APA) principles of medical ethics direct. Dangerous Case will have supporters and detractors for good reasons — some political, some social, some psychiatric — that have much more to do with views of Trump’s mental health than with the Goldwater rule. I believe that the APA, in the interest of promoting public health and safety, should encourage rather than silence the debate the book generates. And it should take caution not to enforce an annotation that undermines the overriding public health and safety mandate that applies to all physicians. Standards of professional ethics and professionalism change with time and circumstance, and psychiatry’s reaction to one misstep in 1964 should not entail another in 2017.

Bloggarkiv