Blog uživatele marianadelaney22586

And throughout the neonatal intensive care unit, he heard doctors promise to try. Even if it meant cramming tubes down the children's throats, cutting open their chests or bombarding their frail bodies with radiation. Even when they knew the treatments couldn't save them, and would only fill their final days with pain.

"Some of the parents were waiting for a miracle. How do you deal with that?" said Clark, a Jesuit priest and professor at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "In some cases, you have to give the family a little more time. But where do you draw the line?"

Clark spent a year observing medical ethics at the Washington, D.C. hospital. The dilemma he witnessed occurs daily in hospitals nationwide, and a growing number have crafted policies allowing doctors to cease aggressive treatments of terminally ill patients, even when relatives want them to keep fighting.

Within a year, the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania plans to adopt ethics guidelines under which doctors could decline to admit patients to an intensive care unit if they have been in a persistent vegetative state for at least three to six months.

In such cases, the hospital would continue to offer care to ease a patients' pain, but wouldn't take invasive steps like putting the patient on a breathing machine or performing surgery, said Dr. Horace DeLisser, who co-chairs the ethics committee implementing the guidelines.

"There are certain types of injuries people suffer where one should acknowledge the tragedy that has occurred, and realize that the chances of recovery are negligible, and really redirect care toward making sure the person is as comfortable as possible," DeLisser said.

But some advocates and religious groups have argued that only patients themselves are qualified to decide whether doctors should try to save them.

Stephen Gold, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents people with disabilities, https://www.jzsznukd.online - https://www.jzsznukd.online said hospitals might be tempted to cut off expensive care - http://www.groundreport.com/?s=expensive%20care to people who lack health - http://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=usagov&query=lack%20health insurance or are handicapped.

"It is a slippery slope they are going down," he said. "If we have a way to provide a medical treatment for people that will keep them alive, we should always provide it, unless they have a living will saying we shouldn't."

Hospitals, however, have pressed ahead. The American Medical Association recommended in 1997 that all hospitals develop a "medical futility" policy allowing for an end to aggressive lifesaving measures if doctors determine a patient cannot be cured.

Since then, most hospitals have developed some sort of guidelines, said Amy Lee, a spokeswoman for the American Hospital Association.

"But there isn't a lot of uniformity, and the standards tend to vary from region to region," she said.

Mercy Health System, which operates three community hospitals near Philadelphia, drafted guidelines two years ago that are becoming typical of hospitals nationwide.

Doctors are authorized to stop aggressive treatment for a patient against a family's wishes, but only after a lengthy appeals process. Relatives can ask for a second opinion, appeal to an ethics panel, and then file a second appeal with an interdisciplinary panel.

So far, the policy has only been invoked twice, said Clark, who serves as an ethics adviser to the hospital system. In both cases, the families initially appealed, but later changed their minds.

"We want the family to be involved in the decision," Clark said. "It's about how to balance the patient's autonomy, while protecting a physician's integrity."

Both doctors and patients report, however, that fights over end-of-life decisions often go unresolved.

Courts have struggled with the issue as well.

In the landmark 1994 "Baby K" case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Virginia hospital must provide artificial resuscitation for a child with anencephaly, a rare malformation in which almost all the brain is missing at birth.

Scientists believe children with anencephaly are incapable of thought or emotion and doctors almost universally advise parents to withhold life support. Baby K's mother insisted, over the objection of doctors, that her child be kept alive. With the court-mandated breathing assistance, the child lived for 2 1/2 years.

"Not everyone agrees on what constitutes a life worth living," said Gold. "I had a client with cerebral palsy once who was asked to sign a (Do Not Resuscitate) order when they went in to be treated for appendicitis," he said.

By David B. Caruso

And throughout the neonatal intensive care unit, he heard doctors promise to try. Even if it meant cramming tubes down the children's throats, cutting open their chests or bombarding their frail bodies with radiation. Even when they knew the treatments couldn't save them, and would only fill their final days with pain.

"Some of the parents were waiting for a miracle. How do you deal with that?" said Clark, a Jesuit priest and professor at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "In some cases, you have to give the family a little more time. But where do you draw the line?"

Clark spent a year observing medical ethics at the Washington, D.C. hospital. The dilemma he witnessed occurs - https://www.herfeed.com/?s=witnessed%20occurs daily in hospitals nationwide, and a growing number have crafted policies allowing doctors to cease aggressive treatments of terminally ill patients, even when relatives want them to keep fighting.

Within a year, the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania plans to adopt ethics guidelines under which doctors could decline to admit patients to an intensive care unit if they have been in a persistent vegetative state for at least three to six months.

In such cases, the hospital would continue to offer care to ease a patients' pain, but wouldn't take invasive steps like putting the patient on a breathing machine or performing surgery, said Dr. Horace DeLisser, who co-chairs the ethics committee implementing the guidelines.

"There are certain types of injuries people suffer where one should acknowledge the tragedy that has occurred, and realize that the chances of recovery are negligible, and really redirect care toward making sure the person is as comfortable as possible," DeLisser said.

But some advocates and religious groups have argued that only patients themselves are qualified to decide whether doctors should try to save them.

Stephen Gold, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents people with disabilities, said hospitals might be tempted to cut off expensive care to people who lack health insurance or are handicapped - http://www.sharkbayte.com/keyword/handicapped .

"It is a slippery slope they are going down," he said. "If we have a way to provide a medical treatment for people that will keep them alive, we should always provide it, unless they have a living will saying we shouldn't."

Hospitals, however, have pressed ahead. The American Medical Association recommended in 1997 that all hospitals develop a "medical futility" policy allowing for an end to aggressive lifesaving measures if doctors determine a patient cannot be cured.

Since then, most hospitals have developed some sort of guidelines, said Amy Lee, a spokeswoman for the American Hospital Association.

"But there isn't a lot of uniformity, and the standards tend to vary from region to region," she said.

Mercy Health System, which operates three community hospitals near Philadelphia, drafted guidelines two years ago that are becoming typical of hospitals nationwide.

Doctors are authorized to stop aggressive treatment for a patient against a family's wishes, but only after a lengthy appeals process. Relatives can ask for a second opinion, https://www.hxwbrap6a.online - https://www.hxwbrap6a.online appeal to an ethics panel, and then file a second appeal with an interdisciplinary panel.

So far, the policy has only been invoked twice, said Clark, who serves as an ethics adviser to the hospital system. In both cases, the families initially appealed, but later changed their minds.

"We want the family to be involved in the decision," Clark said. "It's about how to balance the patient's autonomy, while protecting a physician's integrity."

Both doctors and patients report, however, that fights over end-of-life decisions often go unresolved.

Courts have struggled with the issue as well.

In the landmark 1994 "Baby K" case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Virginia hospital must provide artificial resuscitation for a child with anencephaly, a rare malformation in which almost all the brain is missing at birth.

Scientists believe children with anencephaly are incapable of thought or emotion and doctors almost universally advise parents to withhold life support. Baby K's mother insisted, over the objection of doctors, that her child be kept alive. With the court-mandated breathing assistance, the child lived for 2 1/2 years.

"Not everyone agrees on what constitutes a life worth living," said Gold. "I had a client with cerebral palsy once who was asked to sign a (Do Not Resuscitate) order when they went in to be treated for appendicitis," he said.

By David B. Caruso

The survey also found an increasing - http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/_search?q=increasing number of people are worried that smallpox, wiped from the globe more than 20 years ago, will return in an act of bioterror.

People most trust their own doctors to give them correct information about how to protect themselves from disease caused by bioterrorism — although most regular doctors know little about smallpox and https://www.sosc6nj44.online - https://www.sosc6nj44.online other rare diseases likely to result from an attack.

>\

>
People are significantly less likely to trust government agencies and officials for information, suggesting the government has a big job ahead of itself to educate doctors, who can then pass the information to their patients.

>\

>
"Information about diagnosing and treating diseases used in bioterrorism needs to get to the front lines of the health system — doctors," said the report commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

r>

r>
Among government officials, the most trusted is the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

r>

r>
Overall, most of the public believes the nation is somewhat better prepared to handle a biological or chemical attack than it was last year, when anthrax was sent through the mail, though only a handful say the country is very well prepared

r>

r>
Pollster Michael Perry attributed the heightened concern about smallpox to the increased attention it has received in the media as President Bush nears a decision about offering the smallpox vaccine to the public for the first time in three decades

r>

r>
The president could make his vaccination plan public as early as this week

r>

r>
"A growing number of people have moved from being uninformed about the disease and the vaccine to a state of heightened concern about the possibility of a smallpox attack," Perry said

r>

r>
On smallpox, the poll found that 65 percent of people are willing to be vaccinated although it "may produce serious side effects in a small number of cases." Twenty-two percent said they would not get the vaccine, and 14 percent said they didn't know

r>

r>
In May, 59 percent of people surveyed in a similar poll said they would get the vaccine

r>

r>
The poll found the portion of people worried about smallpox also rose since May. Nearly six in 10 now say they are very or somewhat worried that terrorists will attack with smallpox, up from 43 percent in May

r>

r>
The telephone poll of 1,002 adults was conducted Oct. 20-30. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points

r>

r>
In the poll, the question about getting the smallpox vaccine - http://www.google.de/search?q=smallpox%20vaccine was asked after a series of questions about the threat of bioterrorism, so people being surveyed may have been thinking more about the threats than about the risks of the vaccine

r>

r>
People were not given details about the vaccine's risks: Fifteen of every million people being vaccinated for the first time will face life-threatening complications, and one or two will die

r>

r>
Smallpox shots involve a number of jabs with a needle containing some live virus. This triggers serious side effects in people with deficient immune systems or skin conditions, like eczema. People who are vaccinated can transmit the disease to others if the vaccinated area is left exposed, and this adds danger to any widespread vaccinations

r>

r>
CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported recently that the president was considering a plan that would vaccinate one million people

r>

r>
In an update of national smallpox policy in November, the CDC said more limited ring vaccinations were the appropriate method for dealing with any outbreak. Ring vaccinations would provide vaccine first to people dealing with patients, then to others most at risk, and then to broader sections of the community if necessary

r>

r>
Ring vaccinations would be "more desirable than an indiscriminate mass vaccination campaign," said the CDC, because of the chances of people who should not get the vaccine getting it and the logistical difficulties involved

r>

r>
In a White House briefing Tuesday, spokesman Ari Fleischer refused to be pinned down on when Mr. Bush would reveal his vaccination plan.

r>

r>
"It's a matter that he's approached with care and deliberation. He has, I think, properly and wisely taken time to make his determinations about whether or not to proceed with any type of smallpox inoculation program or vaccine program for the American people," Fleischer said

r>

r>
On Tuesday, states submitted their own smallpox vaccination plans to the federal government. These displayed a variety of approaches, from Georgia— planning shots for just 300 to 500 people — to California, which has requested 70,000 doses of the vaccine.

(CBS News) What would Academy Awards Sunday be without our own Oscar prognosticator David Edelstein?

Last year, I sat here and predicted every Oscar winner. Had I gabbed with Academy members? Nope. Can I foretell the future? Sorry. Did I just love the big winner, "The Artist"? Definitely not.

I'd simply read certain columnists who'd been spun by certain publicists who'd been hired by certain studios that had squired certain nominees around Hollywood to screenings and cocktail parties to influence the votes of a few thousand people -- most over 55, white, well-off and liberal.

More in The Academy Awards

This year it's even busier. Harvey Weinstein, all-mighty poobah of Oscar buzz, got Dr. Mehmet Oz to extol "Silver Linings Playbook" for its insights into mental illness.

Look, I like the movie. It's a good, https://www.tyjryi7h.online - https://www.tyjryi7h.online dark rom-com about a couple of cute depressives. Maybe it's even therapeutic to see people crazier than WE are. I'm just not certain of its medical efficacy.

Meanwhile, Steven Spielberg brought in a master to spin for "Lincoln": Bill Clinton! You hire awards consultants like political consultants. You stay ahead of the message.

Or you end up like Kathryn Bigelow, whose phenomenal "Zero Dark Thirty" was an early favorite, but maybe a tad fast-and-loose - https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/tad%20fast-and-loose with facts in saying torture led to the courier who led to bin Laden. True or false, the controversy hasn't played well -- proof in one way torture doesn't work. Reportedly. I've read this, from columnists spun by publicists working for "Zero Dark Thirty" rivals.

They also say it's "Argo" for Best Picture because people feel bad that Ben Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director -- - http://www.squidoo.com/search/results?q=Director%20-- his loss the movie's gain. And it doesn't hurt that the film makes Hollywood types look heroic.

Oscars 2013: Take our Best Picture poll!Watch: Predicting the winners with Hollywood Reporter's Erin CarlsonWatch: A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips' Oscar predictionsComplete coverage: 2013 Oscars

Clinton might help Spielberg win Best Director. I'm guessing Dr. Oz fave Jennifer Lawrence for Best Actress, though there's a dark horse in "Amour"'s Emmanuelle Riva.

Anne Hathaway has been on the campaign trail for "Les Miserables" and she'll get it, not in spite of looking like a chicken when she sings but BECAUSE of it. Flamboyant anti-vanity: It sells.

I'm betting Tommy Lee Jones for "Lincoln," but some are predicting Robert De Niro for "Silver Linings Playbook" if people find Jones too much of a sourpuss, which he kind of is.

The lock, of course, is Daniel Day-Lewis, who as Shakespeare would say "doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus."

Now, none of this has much to do with what I laughingly call "artistic merit." And except for Day-Lewis, none are my choices.

Although they might be if I heard from, say, Bill Clinton . . . or better yet, Jennifer Lawrence. Call me, babe. I wanna be on the inside, where Oscars really get decided.

"In late 1992, Quentin Tarantino left Amsterdam where he had spent five months, off and on, in a one-room apartment with no phone or fax, writing the script that would become 'Pulp Fiction'," Vanity Fair contributing editor Mark Seal read from his article for the magazine's 2013 Hollywood issue. "'Pulp Fiction' changed the movie landscape forever...And it made Quentin Tarantino."

"Everybody has a favorite scene in 'Pulp Fiction,'" actor John Travolta told CBS News. "It could be the Jack Rabbit Slim ... it could be the Uma scene ... or it could be, what's in the briefcase."

"Pulp Fiction was almost like a Picasso painting. It broke all the rules. It was out of sequence," Sea explained. "Travolta's character dies in the middle of the film and then comes back ... and it just kind of works in a way that I don't think anyone, including Quentin, expected."

"It's difficult in the modern age of film to have a vision," Travolta explained. "And Quentin is a visionary."

Quentin Tarantino exploded onto the scene in 1992 with "Reservoir Dogs", about a gang of ruthless robbers, starring Harvey Keitel.

"Quentin symbolizes for me that urge that young talent has, that desire to do something, to say something, to be, to take action," said Keitel.

More in The Academy Awards

Over the last 20 years, Tarantino has created one memorable film after another. "Django Unchained", the director's epic Western about a slave on a mission to rescue his wife, is nominated for a best picture Oscar.

But it was "Pulp Fiction", a film about a group of lowlifes living in Los Angeles, that established Tarantino as one of Hollywood's finest writers and directors - http://statigr.am/tag/directors .

"My work is kind of unmistakably me, and I like that about it. But you know, you are either going to really dig it or you're gonna be against it," Tarantino told "CBS News Sunday Morning" in 2009.

When it came to choosing his leading man, Tarantino opted for John Travolta, even though many insiders thought his best days were behind him.

"I wasn't the hot ticket at that moment so he really had to fight for me," Travolta said. "He finally ... said, 'Listen, we either go with John or ... I'm not gonna do the movie.' And so I thought, I better deliver for this guy because he means business and he's so sweet to believe in me so much."

Tarantino wanted Travolta to reclaim the charisma he had flashed onscreen in "Saturday Night Fever" and "Grease". He was betting audiences would love to see Travolta dance again. For "Pulp Fiction," Tarantino asked him to do the twist. Travolta had other ideas.

"I said, 'the twist is fun and it's good,' I said, 'but when I was a kid there were novelty dances that were equally fun. There was the swim, and there was the hitchhiker ... and then, of course, on the TV series 'Batman', Catwoman did this dance like this," he said, https://www.zrccb1jea.online/ - https://www.zrccb1jea.online/ demonstrating the iconic gesture from the film.

The chemistry between Travolta and Uma Thurman mesmerized moviegoers. But no one was prepared for what came next.

"... in these more intricate scenes, he had a vision of how he wanted to time out ... where all the characters were in the room and the timing had to be just right," Travolta said. "But when it came together, gelled, it took off like a balloon."

"The needle to the heart ... you can't look away from that scene," said Seal.

"I don't think anyone who saw 'Pulp Fiction' was the same when they walked out of that theater," he continued. "I know I wasn't. I mean it just stunned you."

"I still have people coming over to me about 'The Wolf' in 'Pulp Fiction,'" Keitel quipped. "'The Wolf' [is] the name of the character, you know, says it all."

Brooklyn-born Harvey Keitel has always been baffled by Tarantino's remarkable ability to depict tough guys.

" I asked him, "Anybody in your family that, you know, was a tough guy?' 'No.' 'Anybody associated with tough guys?' 'No.' 'You ever get beaten up by tough guys?' 'No.' I said, 'Well, how the hell did you come to write this screenplay?' And he said, 'I work in a video store. I watched movies.'"

And, of course, in Tarantino's films, tough guys go hand in hand with violence, and that, initially, was a big problem for "Pulp Fiction".

Every studio passed on "Pulp Fiction" and it was, in part, because of the violent. There was an uproar in Washington about violence in films. Were films becoming too violent?

It's an issue that resonates to this day and something Tarantino never apologizes for. "I work in crime films, martial art movies - I guess there's gonna be a fight or two. In movies, violence can be cool," he said in a 2009 interview.

Violence in Tarantino's films always seems to have a peculiar twist.

"I specialize in making you laugh at things that aren't normally funny," the director told "CBS "News Sunday Morning" in 2009. "John Travolta turns to the guy in the backseat of the car and accidentally blows his head off. And that is a funny sight gag."

Everything clicked in "Pulp Fiction". It's easily one of the most talked about and memorable films of the past 25 years and is analyzed to this day.

"I think it was a yin yang chemistry ... you mix darkness with light - it's a dark script," Travolta said. "But you pick Bruce Willis, John Travolta, Uma Thurman that have a light essence, and if you mix that with darkness, you have humor."

"It's just a great movie," Seal agrees. "I think it's still fresh and exciting and new every time you watch it. And I think it's just brilliant."

Studies released this year by the National Cancer Institute and others have linked long-term estrogen use to breast and ovarian cancer, raising concerns among women who use the hormone.

A federal advisory panel recommended the hormone be listed as a cancer agent two years ago, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences made it official this week with the publication of its biennial report on carcinogens.

The report, listing substances that are known or reasonably anticipated to cause a cancer risk, was sent to Congress and released by the Department of Health and Human Services.

While the expert panel recommended that the group of hormones known as steroidal estrogens be listed as cancer risks, members observed that they have benefits - http://search.about.com/?q=benefits as well as dangers. The substances are used in hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives.

The panel did not suggest banning estrogens but said officially linking them with cancer could make it more probable that physicians would discuss both risks and benefits when discussing options with their patients.

The 10th annual cancer report brings to 228 the number of substances linked to cancer.

While the new report lists steroidal estrogens as "known human carcinogens," some of the individual steroidal estrogens had been listed as "reasonably anticipated carcinogens" in past editions.

Also newly listed as known causes of cancer in humans are broad-spectrum ultraviolet radiation - whether generated by the sun or by artificial sources - and https://www.opblog.top/ - https://www.opblog.top/ wood dust.

The report, issued every two years, is required by Congress to help keep the public informed about substances or exposure circumstances that are known or are reasonably anticipated to cause human cancers. It does not determine how great the risk is or any balancing benefits from the substances.

Added to the list were of known carcinogens were:

Twelve substances or groups of substances are newly listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens." These include:

By Randolph E. Schmid

(CBS News) What would Academy Awards Sunday be without our own Oscar prognosticator David Edelstein?

Last year, I sat here and predicted every Oscar winner. Had I gabbed with Academy members? Nope. Can I foretell the future? Sorry. Did I just love the big winner, "The Artist"? Definitely not.

I'd simply - http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=I%27d%20simply read certain columnists who'd been spun by certain publicists who'd been hired by certain studios that had squired certain nominees around Hollywood to screenings and cocktail parties to influence the votes of a few thousand people -- most over 55, white, well-off and liberal.

More in The Academy Awards

This year it's even busier. Harvey Weinstein, all-mighty poobah of Oscar buzz, got Dr. Mehmet Oz to extol "Silver Linings Playbook" for its insights into mental illness.

Look, I like the movie. It's a good, dark rom-com about a couple of cute depressives. Maybe it's even therapeutic to see people crazier than WE are. I'm just not certain of its medical efficacy.

Meanwhile, Steven Spielberg brought in a master to spin for "Lincoln": Bill Clinton! You hire awards consultants like political consultants. You stay ahead of the message.

Or you end up like Kathryn Bigelow, whose phenomenal "Zero Dark Thirty" was an early favorite, but maybe a tad fast-and-loose with facts in saying torture led to the courier who led to bin Laden. True or false, the controversy hasn't played well -- proof in one way torture doesn't work. Reportedly. I've read this, from columnists spun by publicists working for "Zero Dark Thirty" rivals.

They also say it's "Argo" for Best Picture because people feel bad that Ben Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director -- his loss the movie's gain. And it doesn't hurt that the film makes Hollywood types look heroic.

Oscars 2013: Take our Best Picture poll!Watch: Predicting the winners with Hollywood Reporter's Erin CarlsonWatch: A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips' Oscar predictionsComplete coverage: 2013 Oscars

Clinton might help Spielberg win Best Director. I'm guessing Dr. Oz fave Jennifer Lawrence for Best Actress, though there's a dark horse in "Amour"'s Emmanuelle Riva.

Anne Hathaway has been on the campaign trail for "Les Miserables" and https://www.xtyle.kr/ - https://www.xtyle.kr/ she'll get it, not in spite of looking like a chicken when she sings but BECAUSE of it. Flamboyant anti-vanity: It sells.

I'm betting Tommy - http://www.europeana.eu/portal/search.html?query=betting%20Tommy Lee Jones for "Lincoln," but some are predicting Robert De Niro for "Silver Linings Playbook" if people find Jones too much of a sourpuss, which he kind of is.

The lock, of course, is Daniel Day-Lewis, who as Shakespeare would say "doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus."

Now, none of this has much to do with what I laughingly call "artistic merit." And except for Day-Lewis, none are my choices.

Although they might be if I heard from, say, Bill Clinton . . . or better yet, Jennifer Lawrence. Call me, babe. I wanna be on the inside, where Oscars really get decided.

The survey also found an increasing number of people are worried that smallpox, wiped from the globe more than 20 years ago, will return in an act of bioterror.

People most trust their own doctors to give them correct information about how to protect themselves from disease caused by bioterrorism — although most regular doctors know little about smallpox and other rare diseases likely to result from an attack.

>\

>
People are significantly less likely to trust government agencies and officials for information, suggesting the government has a big job ahead of itself to educate doctors, who can then pass the information to their patients.

>\

>
"Information about diagnosing and treating diseases used in bioterrorism needs to get to the front lines of the health system — doctors," said the report commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

r>

r>
Among government officials, the most trusted is the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

r>

r>
Overall, most of the public believes the nation is somewhat better prepared to handle a biological or chemical attack than it was last year, when anthrax was sent through the mail, though only a handful say the country is very well prepared

r>

r>
Pollster Michael Perry attributed the heightened concern about smallpox to the increased attention it has received in the media as President Bush nears a decision about offering the smallpox vaccine to the public for the first time in three decades

r>

r>
The president could make his vaccination plan public as early as this week

r>

r>
"A growing number of people have moved from being uninformed about the disease and the vaccine to a state of heightened concern about the possibility of a smallpox attack," Perry said

r>

r>
On smallpox, the poll found that 65 percent of people are willing to be vaccinated although it "may produce serious side effects in a small number of cases." Twenty-two percent said they would not get the vaccine, and 14 percent said they didn't know

r>

r>
In May, 59 percent of people surveyed - http://www.houzz.com/?search=people%20surveyed in a similar poll said they would get the vaccine

r>

r>
The poll found the portion of people worried about smallpox also rose since May. Nearly six in 10 now say they are very or somewhat worried that terrorists - http://www.exeideas.com/?s=terrorists will attack with smallpox, up from 43 percent in May

r>

r>
The telephone poll of 1,002 adults was conducted Oct. 20-30. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points

r>

r>
In the poll, the question about getting the smallpox vaccine was asked after a series of questions about the threat of bioterrorism, so people being surveyed may have been thinking more about the threats than about the risks of the vaccine

r>

r>
People were not given details about the vaccine's risks: Fifteen of every million people being vaccinated for the first time will face life-threatening complications, and one or two will die

r>

r>
Smallpox shots involve a number of jabs with a needle containing some live virus. This triggers serious side effects in people with deficient immune systems or skin conditions, like eczema. People who are vaccinated can transmit the disease to others if the vaccinated area is left exposed, and this adds danger to any widespread vaccinations

r>

r>
CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported recently that the president was considering a plan that would vaccinate one million people

r>

r>
In an update of national smallpox policy in November, https://www.cnwpf84w5.online - https://www.cnwpf84w5.online the CDC said more limited ring vaccinations were the appropriate method for dealing with any outbreak. Ring vaccinations would provide vaccine first to people dealing with patients, then to others most at risk, and then to broader sections of the community if necessary

r>

r>
Ring vaccinations would be "more desirable than an indiscriminate mass vaccination campaign," said the CDC, because of the chances of people who should not get the vaccine getting it and the logistical difficulties involved

r>

r>
In a White House briefing Tuesday, spokesman Ari Fleischer refused to be pinned down on when Mr. Bush would reveal his vaccination plan.

r>

r>
"It's a matter that he's approached with care and deliberation. He has, I think, properly and wisely taken time to make his determinations about whether or not to proceed with any type of smallpox inoculation program or vaccine program for the American people," Fleischer said

r>

r>
On Tuesday, states submitted their own smallpox vaccination plans to the federal government. These displayed a variety of approaches, from Georgia— planning shots for just 300 to 500 people — to California, which has requested 70,000 doses of the vaccine.

(CBS News) POP goes the cash register at a movie theaters where pop goes the CORN! Mo Rocca has a bucket of facts and figures:

The biggest moneymaker at movie theaters last year wasn't from a comic book or Steven Spielberg, and didn't involve werewolves or vampires.

Just like every year, the number one blockbuster was the concession stand and its most bankable star, popcorn.

Each year Americans eat on average - http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=average about 13 gallons of the stuff - - https://twitter.com/search?q=stuff%20-&src=typd a lot of it at the movies. The bag you pay $5 for only costs the theatre about 50 cents.

"A lot of people buy popcorn," said Melissa Rocha, a manager at Film Forum, an independent movie house in Manhattan. The New York Times gave their popcorn a rave review!

More in Movies

She says the sound of the popcorn machine makes her a little bit nervous, "because usually when it starts happening that means it's starting to get busy in the theater."

"So you associate this sound with crowd control?" Rocca asked.

"Yes, And it getting busy," she laughed.

But popcorn and the movies didn't always go together, says Andrew Smith, the man who wrote the book on popcorn.

"Movie theatres early on had no popcorn whatsoever," said Smith. "They had no snack bar. They had grand lobbies and they had gorgeous rugs. And the last thing that they wanted was people with popcorn."

So what happened? The Depression.

"When the Depression hit, lots of movie theatres closed," said Smith. "But then they found out if they lowered their admission fee, then they could actually make a larger profit if they could sell snack food, which popcorn was by far their largest profit margin."

"So just get people in the seats, get them into the movie house, and then they buy a lot of popcorn?"

"Yes. In the 1930s, the best comment was, 'Find a good place to sell popcorn and build a movie theatre there."

Popcorn not only saved movie houses, says Smith, but also played a role in what ended up on screen.

"What theatre owners found was those movies that were targeted at children were the ones that sold the most popcorn," said Smith. "And so consequently they made their profit on Saturday matinees and on Sunday matinees."

It wasn't just kids' movies that turned out to be popcorn-friendly, 바카라사이트 - http://www.agawamhousing.org/contact.html says Smith. Grown-ups were chowing down during suspenseful dramas.

"What they found very quickly was adults would eat a lot more popcorn when you have drama in the theaters -- It's almost an automatic thing that it's there and there's tension going on."

"So people were probably eating a lot of popcorn during 'The Poseidon Adventure,'" suggested Rocca.

All quite the accomplishment for a snack with not a lot of flavor.

Which is where that neon yellow stuff -- no, it's not really butter, it's mostly soybean oil -- and salt come in. The saltier the popcorn, the more you'll need a giant soda to slake your thirst. And that's just fine with theater owners!

"When I'm leaving a movie house, and I feel that stickiness underneath my shoes, should I blame popcorn or soda for that?" asked Rocca.

"You should be proud that those products helped make that theatre possible, and make those movies possible," said Smith. "Because I don't think there would be movie theatres, and I don't think there would be films, at least in theatres, without popcorn."

For more info:

Psychiatrists have prescribed the world's best-known antidepressant, and similar competitors, to their youngest patients for years, despite a shortage of studies proving they work in children.

But the Food and Drug Administration declared Friday that there's finally proof that Prozac alleviates depression in children 8 years and 바카라사이트 - http://www.epilepsypregnancyregister.ie/registration.html older, the first drug among the newer antidepressants, which boost the mood regulator - http://www.wired.com/search?query=mood%20regulator serotonin, to win such approval.

Prozac's Indianapolis-based maker, Eli Lilly & Co., said it didn't intend to market Prozac for children. Still, putting child-specific information on Prozac's FDA-mandated label means more doctors, not just depression specialists, may prescribe it.

The FDA also approved Prozac's use in children with obsessive-compulsive disorder, the third serotonin-enhancing drug to win that designation.

Prozac side effects are similar for adults and children, including nausea, tiredness, nervousness, dizziness and difficulty - https://www.sportsblog.com/search?search=difficulty concentrating, the FDA said.

But children have one unique side effect: In one study, children and teenagers taking Prozac grew a little more slowly - a half inch less in height and 2 pounds less in weight over a period of 19 weeks - than similarly aged children taking a dummy pill.

No one yet knows if the Prozac patients catch up or how big a concern that is, said the FDA's Dr. Russell Katz. Lilly agreed to further study the side effect.

Up to 25 percent of U.S. children and 8 percent of teenagers suffer depression, the FDA said. Additionally, about 2 percent of the population has obsessive-compulsive disorder, and at least a third of those cases began in childhood.

Psychiatrists welcomed the FDA's move.

"It made sense to prescribe these drugs, but yet everyone who did it felt a certain amount of anxiety that we didn't have all the data," said Dr. Lois Flaherty of the American Psychiatric Association.

Manufacturers have little incentive to study adult drugs in children if they expect desperate pediatricians will use the medicines anyway. In 1998, the FDA tried to require more pediatric testing, but a federal court recently threw out that requirement.