Tag: Attention

  • THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS

    THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS

    No one who keeps in even only fair touch with the affairs of the world of today can have failed to notice the frequent mention of the term “Eugenics” in the newspapers, magazine, and books of the hour. And yet, many persons seem to be in doubt as to the meaning and use of the term; some thinking that it refers to some new “ism” or “ology,” or perhaps to some new and strange doctrine concerning the relations of the sexes. In view of this fact, the writer has thought it well to give the readers of this book a brief, though somewhat comprehensive, view of the general subject of Eugenics.

    Eugenics, sometimes known as the Science of Parenthood, has well been styled “the New Science,” for it has forced itself into public notice within the past ten or fifteen years, whereas before that time it was practically unknown to the general public. At the present time some of the world’s greatest thinkers have spoken or written on the subject, and many regard it as one of the most vital branches of human research, endeavor, and study, for the future of the race is involved in the solution of its problems. In its general phase of race-betterment, Eugenics is receiving the attention of statesmen, sociologists and patriots; in its particular phases, the earnest attention, interest and study of men and women who wish offspring of the best quality obtainable.

    The spirit of Eugenics may be expressed in the words of Dr. G. Stanley Hall, president of Clark University, who has said: “Our duty of all duties is to transmit the sacred torch of life undiminished, and, if possible, a little brightened, to our children.{66} This is the chief end of men and women. All posterity slumbers in our bodies, as we did in our ancestors. The basis of the new biological ethics of today, and of the future, is that everything is right that makes for the welfare of the yet unborn, and all is wrong that injures them, and to do so is the unpardonable sin—the only one nature knows.”

    That phase of Eugenics which has brought the new science more prominently before the public mind, and which has enrolled on its roster the names of some of the world’s most eminent scientists, sociologists, and writers—the phase of race-betterment from the standpoint of sociology—has led many to believe that Eugenics is confined to that phase, and is but a movement toward “the successful breeding of the human race” on a universal scale. To many, such a movement while deemed commendable and desirable nevertheless lacks the appeal of the heart and affections—it seems to be of the head alone. But when such persons are brought to their realization that Eugenics is also a movement to promote the bearing of children—to enable each mated couple to bring forth perfect offspring—then the heart is enlisted as a co-worker with the head.

    The sociological phase of Eugenics—the phase of Race Culture in general—is being vigorously advanced by societies and organizations in various parts of the world, the parent organization being the Eugenics Education Society, of London, England. Dr. C. W. Saleeby, one of those prominent in the work of the said Society, has the following to say concerning the work of that organization:

    “The Eugenics Education Society exists to uphold the ideal of Parenthood as the highest and most responsible of human powers; to proclaim that the racial instinct is therefore supremely sacred, and its exercise{67} through marriage, for the service of the future, the loftiest of all privileges. It stands for a transfigured sentiment of parenthood which regards with solicitude not child and grandchild only, but the generations to come hereafter—fathers of the future creating and providing for the remote children. That which too many schools of thought and practice have derided or defiled, it seeks to elevate and ennoble. Parenthood on the part of the diseased, the insane, the alcoholic—where these conditions promise to be transmitted—must be denounced as a crime against the future. In these directions the Society stands for active legislation, and for the formation of that public opinion which legislation, if it is to be effective, must express. Parenthood on the part of the worthy must be buttressed, guided, and extolled. The Society stands for the education of the young regarding the responsibility and holiness of the racial function of parenthood.”

    The Eugenists hold that in the near future our children, looking back upon the present and the past state of indifference and neglect concerning the important subject of bearing and rearing of children, will experience the same horror that we now feel when we look back upon the indifference to the horrors of human slavery, imprisonment for debt, cruelty toward prisoners, treatment of the insane, executions for trivial offences, etc., on the part of our ancestors. Our descendants will deem it almost inconceivable that we, their ancestors, could have been so blind and criminally negligent.

    But, as leading Eugenists have pointed out, the new science does not confine its attention to the subject of preventive measures, important as they are—it also directs its attention to the constructive phase of the subject, i. e., the production of better children. While Eugenics strives to prevent the unfit from flooding the race with unfit progeny, it at the same time strives to{68} educate the race so that the fit may bear and rear better offsprings. It is not sufficient merely to eliminate the unfit—we must also improve, and still further render fit, the fit members of the race. The fit must not be allowed to remain merely the fit—we must evolve a fitter—and ever move onward toward the realization of the ideal of the fittest. We must not only strive to eliminate the beast in the race of men—we must also aid the race to unfold in the direction of the super-man.

    The Eugenists know that much of the talk concerning Race Suicide is not only futile and uncalled for, but is also in a sense misleading and actually dangerous. The real danger of Race Suicide comes not from the decreasing birth-rate, but from the excessive, ignorant, and unscientific bearing and rearing of children by unfit parents. It is not so much a matter of how many children are born, as of how they are born, what kind of children they are, and how they are reared physically, mentally and morally, and how many survive. It is not so much that the lower death-rate be avoided, says the Eugenist, as it is that the higher death-rate be overcome. The intelligent stockbreeder grasps this scientific law of the Eugenists when he endeavors to produce the best young, and then to take care of them that they survive and reach a healthy maturity. To the Eugenist, it is not so much a question of “more,” but of “better”—not so much a question of quantity as of quality—not so much a question of production, but of conservation and preservation.

    Dr. Saleeby refers to the death-rate of London, which is but 16 to the 1000, as compared to that of Bombay, which is 79 to the 1000. He adds: “It is asserted that in many large Indian cities the infant mortality approaches one-half of all the children born. What it amounts to in such cities as Canton and Pekin we can only surmise with{69} horror. * * * * Unless it be supposed by bishops and others, then, that a peculiar value attaches to the production of a baby shortly to be buried, the suggestion evidently is the same as that to which every humanitarian and social and patriotic impulse guides us, namely, the reduction of the death-rate, and especially of infant mortality. * * * * Hence the Eugenists and the Episcopal Bench may join hands so far as the reduction of the death-rate is concerned, and the only persons with whom a practical quarrel remains are those who applaud the mother who boasts that she has buried twelve.”

    The Eugenists urge that if the principles applied to plant-life by that master of his science, Luther Burbank, were applied to the production and rearing of young human life, in a few generations we should have a race so far advanced beyond the present average as to be almost god-like by comparison. But this means a far different thing from the ideal of merely “more children”—it requires the manifestation of the ideal of “better children,” well born, carefully reared, well nourished, and scientifically educated. And this rearing, nourishing, and education must not be confined to the physical part of the child’s nature—it must proceed along the three-fold line of physical, mental, and moral culture.

    The Eugenists have been actively concerned with the question of the prevention of the transmission of undesirable qualities to offspring. They have held that while crime is more frequently rather the result of evil environment than of criminal heredity, nevertheless there is a large class of children who are “born criminals”—that is, born with such a decided tendency toward criminal acts that the slightest influence of environment may, and often does, serve to kindle into a blaze the undesirable and criminal characteristics.

    Dr. Saleeby says of this: “In the face of the work of{70} Lombroso and his school, exaggerated though some of their conclusions may be, we cannot dispute the existence of born criminals and the criminal type. There are undoubtedly many such persons in modern society. There is an abundance of crime which no education, practiced or imaginable, would eliminate. Present day psychology and medicine and, for the matter of that, ordinary common-sense, can readily distinguish cases at both extremes—the mattoid or semi-insane criminal at one end, and the decent citizen who yields to exceptional temptation at the other end.”

    The Eugenists quote as an instance of the above contention the celebrated case of Max Jukes, a notorious criminal and drunkard, who as the records show us was the ancestor of a foul brood of descendants which cost the State of New York over a million dollars in seventy-five years. Among these descendants were 200 thieves and murderers; 285 subject to idiocy, blindness or deafness; 90 prostitutes; and 300 children born prematurely. It is possible that a portion of this evil result was caused not alone by bad heredity but, at least in part, by the suggestion of the environment, and the influence of example of the parents; but even so, the primal cause was that Max Jukes, the notoriously unfit ancestor, was allowed to propagate this evil brood, destined to be born and reared under the most adverse conditions and environment.

    The Eugenists also place great importance upon the prevention of insane persons becoming parents. To those who consider that this is but an exceptional and rare occurrence, the Eugenists reply that a large percentage of insane patients in asylums have a family history showing insanity in one or both parents; that reports show that there are thousands of feeble-minded women in every large city allowed to (yes, often actually compelled to) bear children to their husbands or male companions.

    Ribot says: “Every work on insanity is a plea for heredity.” Maudsley says: “More than one-fourth and less than one-half of all insanity is heredity.” Riddell says: “Of the great causes of insanity, alcoholism is perhaps the greatest, while morbid heredity ranks next. Insanity is largely the result of degeneracy. Most persons who become mentally deranged are the offspring of neurotic, drunken, insane or feeble-minded parents.” While it by no means follows that one must manifest traits of insanity or mental disturbance simply because one of his parents suffered from a like trouble—and we believe that many a one has frightened himself into those conditions by pure auto-suggestion inspired by a one-sided belief in heredity—still it is unquestionably true that a fair mind must concede that wisdom and a proper sense of right and justice would require that parents of unsound mental tendencies should not be permitted to bring into the world children who might inherit a tendency toward a like, or worse, condition.

    The Eugenists also have called the attention of the thinking public to the danger of deaf-and-dumb persons transmitting their condition to their offspring. Of this Dr. Saleeby says: “The condition known as deaf-mutism is congenital or due to innate defect in about one-half of all the cases in Great Britain.” Dr. Love says: “In every institution, examples may be found of deaf-mute children who have had one or two deaf parents or grandparents, and of two or more deaf-mute children belonging to one family.” A case is noted in England where a deaf-and-dumb man having been killed by an accident, his relatives could not identify the body, as the wife and sister were blind, deaf-and-dumb, and the four children were deaf-and-dumb. The man and his wife were both deaf-and-dumb when they were married, the wife being also blind.

    Perhaps no subject has aroused the active Eugenists{72} to a greater pitch of indignation than the ascertained results of the effect upon offspring of parents addicted to the over-indulgence in alcohol. It is known by the records that a large number of cases of feeble-mindedness and actual insanity are due to inebriety of parents, and often of grandparents, or ancestors for several generations. Epilepsy, idiocy, and criminality are also traceable in many cases to drunkenness of parents. Dr. Saleeby, moved by indignation by the ascertained results of the investigations of the Eugenists, has said: “Parenthood must be forbidden to the dipsomaniac, the chronic inebriate, or the drunkard, whether male or female.”

    Professor Grenier, writing on the subject of alcoholic degeneration, has said: “Alcohol is one of the most active agents in the degeneracy of the race. The indelible effects produced by heredity are not to be remedied. Alcoholic descendants are often inferior beings, a notable proportion coming under the categories of idiots, imbeciles, and the debilitated. The morbid influence of parents is maximum when conception has taken place at the time of drunkenness of one or both parties. Those with hereditary alcoholism show a tendency to excess; half of them become alcoholics; a large number of cases of neurosis have their principal cause in alcoholic antecedents. The larger portion of the sons of alcoholics have convulsions in early infancy. Epilepsy is almost characteristic of the alcoholism of parents, when it is not an index of a nervous disposition of the whole family. The alcoholic delirium is more frequent in the descendants of alcoholics than in their parents, which indicates their intellectual degeneration.”

    What has been said of alcoholism of course applies to the use of narcotics and other drugs. Galton cites a case in which “a man who had had two healthy children acquired the cocaine habit, and while suffering from the{73} symptoms of chronic poisoning engendered two idiots.” And yet had anyone publicly instructed the wife of this man regarding the use of contraceptives, such person would have been liable to imprisonment!

    Another subject engaging the active attention of the Eugenists, and which is discussed to considerable extent in the privacy of their meetings, but which must be voiced only very carefully in the public prints owing to the “murderous silence” which society prefers to maintain on the subject, is of the influence of venereal diseases as racial poisons transmissible to offspring. Dr. Saleeby has well said: “No other disease can rival syphilis in its hideous influence upon parenthood and the future. But it is no crime for a man to marry, infect his innocent bride and their children; no crime against the laws of our lawgivers, but a heinous outrage against nature’s decrees. When at last our laws are based on nature’s laws, criminal marriages of this kind may be put an end to.”

    The above stated facts are not pleasant reading for most persons, and many pass over them hurriedly, thereby hoping to escape the mental discomfort which the hearing and learning of unpleasant truths so often produce. But the subject will not down—it is forcing itself to the attention of the thinking members of society today in a manner which will admit of no escape. These facts must be faced, and steps must be taken by society to protect the race from degeneration and actual Race Suicide. And the Science of Eugenics is pointing the way.

    Dr. Saleeby says of this phase of Eugenics: “Negative Eugenics will seek to define the diseases and defects which are really hereditary; to name those the transmission of which is already known to occur, and to raise the average of the race by interfering as far as may be with the parenthood of persons suffering from these{74} transmissible disorders. Only thus can certain of the gravest evils of society, as, for instance, feeble-mindedness, insanity, and crime due to inherited degeneracy, be suppressed; and if Race-Culture were absolutely incapable of effecting anything whatever in the way of increasing the fertility of the worthiest classes and individuals, its services in the negative direction here briefly outlined would be of incalculable value. To this policy we shall most certainly come; but here, as in other cases, I trust far more to the influence of an educated public opinion than in legislation; though there are certain forms of transmissible disease, interfering in no way with the responsibility of the individual, the transmission of which should be visited with the utmost rigor of the law, and regarded as utterly criminal, no less than sheer murder.”

    But the Science of Eugenics is concerned not only with telling society what “not to do”—it is equally concerned with telling it “what to do.” It has its Positive as well as its Negative side. After pointing out the evils of procreation on the part of the unfit, it then proceeds to tell the fit how to best serve the interests of the unborn. Eugenics is not satisfied with merely plucking out the foul weeds which have encumbered the fair garden of life—it seeks also to furnish to the real flowers better soil, and improved conditions, and to give them the benefit of the best selection, breeding and conditions, that they may evolve and improve into still more glorious products of nature’s power.

    The Eugenists earnestly advocate laws and public opinion tending to protect mothers and expectant mothers. They recognize the supremacy of motherhood, and aim to encourage and protect it. They decry the common indifference toward this function which is all important in the preservation and evolution of the race, and which neglect is well expressed in the complaint of{75} Bouchacourt, who said: “The dregs of the human species—the blind, the deaf-mute, the degenerate, the imbecile, the epileptic—are better protected than are pregnant women.”

    The Eugenists believe in educating women for motherhood, and in protecting them from conditions which interfere with that important function of their life. They are not fully agreed upon the methods to be pursued in cases of expectant mothers whose lack of proper support prevents them from obtaining the proper nourishment, etc., but in a general way it may be said that they agree in holding that the expectant mother should be looked upon as the honored ward of the State, and should be properly provided for from the public funds.

    The Eugenists also believe in educating the father, or prospective father. They hold that every man should be made acquainted with the duties and responsibilities of fatherhood, and should so conduct and order his life that the production and rearing of a family should result as a consummation of a long cherished ideal. The man should be taught to prepare himself, physically, mentally, and morally, for his coming responsibility to the race. He should also be taught to respect and regard motherhood, and to make it his business to secure and preserve the best possible conditions for the mother of his own children, and the mothers of other men’s children, not as an act of mere sentiment, but as a public duty, a patriotic service, a racial obligation.

    The Eugenists believe in teaching young men and young women on the subject of sexual physiology and psychology. They hold that the race is now criminally negligent in such matters, and that young men and women, by the thousands, enter into the state of marriage and parenthood with no knowledge regarding the sacred functions which they are to bring into activity. They{76} believe that the first requisite of scientific parenthood is and must be a sane knowledge of the physiology of sex, and the psychology of sex. There must be sane education concerning the sexual organism, its laws, its functions, its normal and healthy condition, its anatomy, physiology and hygiene.

    The average physician of several years’ experience can tell tales of almost incredible ignorance on the part of persons who have recently entered into the relationship of marriage. In some cases the ignorance is more than a mere absence of knowledge, for it consists of an array of false-knowledge, untruthful ideas, of often serious importance. It is sad enough to think how the ignorance and false-knowledge may work results hurtful to the young couple themselves, but it is even sadder to realize that these same ignorant or wrongly-informed young persons must gain their real knowledge through sad experience which is to be paid for not only by themselves but also by their children. It is a hard saying, but true that “the knowledge of the majority of young parents is gained by experience paid for by their unborn children.”

    The Eugenists look forward to the coming of the day when it will be regarded as reprehensible to allow young persons to enter into the relationship of marriage without a sane, practical knowledge of their own reproductive organism and functions, and of their physiological duties to themselves, their companions in marriage, and to their children born or to be born. We may, in due time, see a practical realization of the ideal set forth by Dr. Newell Dwight Hillis, who said: “The State that makes a man study two years before a license as druggist is given; that makes a young lawyer or doctor study three years before being permitted to practice, ought to ask the young man or young woman to pass an equally rigid examination {77}before license is given to found an American home, and set up an American family.”

    This idea of the scientific preparation for parenthood is a new one for many, but the coming generations will recognize its importance to the individual and to the race. Many who recognize the influence of pre-natal culture in so far as is concerned the physical, mental, and moral condition of the mother during pregnancy, have failed to perceive that an equally important influence is exerted by the physical, mental and moral condition of both parents before the conception of the child. These conditions are reflected, often very markedly, in the child, and an avoidance of consideration in this respect is often almost criminal negligence.

    Eugenists deplore the haphazard way in which children are so often conceived. More care is often bestowed upon the conditions precedent to the conception of the domestic animals than is given by their owners to the conditions preceding the conception of their own offspring. Too often, while in the case of the domestic animals the utmost care is exercised regarding the arrangement for the breeding of valuable stock, the human offspring are mere “accidents,” conceived without intention, forethought, or preparation; and too often is such conception undesired, regretted and unwelcome.

    This state of affairs is utterly unworthy of civilized man with the knowledge of science at his command, and the intellect and will with which to carry out the plain dictates of reason and duty. Nature does her part unhindered in the case of the lower animals, and man should use her principles as a foundation upon which to build a structure which reason and intelligence should supply the materials. Instead of this, man too often discards Nature’s plain rules entirely, and also refuses to use his reason, and, instead, allows himself to be ruled by selfish{78} inclinations and desires, and ignoble motives.

    To those who may ask: “But why should we give all this time, care and trouble to the young of the race—what is their claim upon us that demands so much of us in return for so little on their part?” the answer is plain. We should do this not alone because of the natural feeling of love for our own offspring which is innate in all normal human beings, but we should also do this because we owe a duty to the race in and which we are units—a duty which demands that we supply to the race the best material, and only the best, for its preservation, continuance, and betterment.

    The spirit of the age is pointing out the direction indicated by Eugenics and scientific Birth Control. And it is a spirit in which the best mental and spiritual powers of man are called into action. A new consciousness—the “race consciousness”—is awakening within the best of the race, and accompanying it is a new conscience—a “race conscience”—is manifesting within us, and is giving the individual a sense of right and wrong toward future generations, just as his earlier-awakened social conscience has opened his eyes to his duties toward his neighbors.

    Man is beginning to feel that all men are his brothers, and that the future generations of men are in a sense his children. The new ideal of “Let us build posterity worthily” has begun to supplant the old narrow idea humorously expressed in the famous bull of Sir Boyce Roche, who said, “Why should we do anything for posterity—what has posterity ever done for us?”

    As Dr. Saleeby has well said: “If the struggle toward individual perfection be religious, so assuredly is the struggle, less egoistic indeed, toward racial perfection. * * * And they that shall be of us shall build up the old waste places; for we shall raise up the foundations of many generations.”

    And in all this, also, we find ever present the distinctive note of modern thought, viz., “Not more children, but better ones; not more births, but less deaths and more survivals; not numerical birth values, but qualitative birth values and numerical survival values.”

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    Sex Advice to Women

    In this book the writer thereof seeks to convey to women—particularly to young wives and women expecting to be married—certain important facts of knowledge, certain necessary information, which all such women should possess, but which few are given the opportunity to acquire.

    It would seem to require no argument to convince a rational individual that before a woman is capable of intelligent motherhood she should be made acquainted with the physiological processes which are involved in the sexual functions leading to the state of motherhood; but we are confronted by the fact that few young women are given such instruction.

    It is a strange thing that while even the ordinary school child is made acquainted with the physiological processes concerned with the processes of digestion, respiration, circulation, elimination, etc., and while such education is highly commended, yet at the same time not only are the young of both sexes reared as if there was no such thing as sexual functions in existence, but even full-grown adults are left to pick up their instruction on sexual subjects from chance sources—often polluted sources.

    Even those about to enter into the important offices of matrimony and parenthood are permitted to assume those duties and responsibilities without intelligent and scientific information or knowledge being given them. What would we think of expecting a woman to cook, without previous experience and without even the most elementary instruction on the subject? What would we think of expecting any person to undertake any important task or duty without experience or instruction regarding the same? And yet we seem content to allow young women to enter into the important relationship of marriage, and to undertake the important office of motherhood, often in absolute ignorance of the physiological processes involved, and the physical laws governing the same.

    All this absurd practice and custom results simply from the antiquated notion that it is “not nice” to speak or think of the subject of the sex functions. The subject has been considered “taboo” by our particular section of the human race since the Middle Ages, because the ascetic ideals of that dark period of human history brought forward a totally false and unnatural conception of sex as fundamentally impure. If the results were not so deplorable and often tragic, this condition of affairs would be a fit subject for laughter and scornful ridicule. But, alas! on the part of the thoughtful observer of this state of things there is rather great wonder and amazement accompanied by the feeling of deep sorrow.

    It cannot be honestly denied that in our present age, and period of modern civilization, and particularly among the Anglo-Saxon branch of the race, the question of the sex functions is associated with impurity, at least so far as the popular mind is concerned. In previous civilizations the subject was accorded its proper place, and was discussed sanely and thoughtfully, without any sense of shame or impurity. The Middle Age ideals of celibacy and asceticism brought about the public conception of the human body as a thing impure—something to be modified, tortured, subdued and reviled; and a corresponding conception of sex as a vile, impure thing above which the pure in heart rose entirely and completely, and which those of a lesser spiritual ideal were permitted to indulge with a due sense of their degradation and weakness. It was considered a most worthy thing to lead an ascetic life with its accompaniment of disdain and punishment of the body. It was considered most pious and spiritual to forego the ordinary human relations of sex, marriage and parenthood. From these distorted conceptions naturally evolved the idea that sex, and all connected with it, was a subject unclean and impure in itself, and to be avoided in thought, conversation and writing. Not only the ordinary sex relations of human life were placed under this taboo, but also the phenomena of birth and parenthood. Not only did these incidents of life grow to be considered impure, but they became that which to many was still worse, that is to say, they became to be regarded as “not respectable.”

    Ignorance regarding the plain elementary facts of sexual physiology is undoubtedly the cause not only of much immorality among young people of both sexes, but also of many unhappy and inharmonious marriages. The intelligent portion of our race is now beginning to realize very keenly the fact that the first requisite of sane marital relations and intelligent parenthood is a practical and clear knowledge of the physiology of sex; education concerning the sexual organism, its laws, its functions, its normal and healthy conditions, its anatomy, its physiology and hygiene.

    The average physician of experience in general or special practice can tell tales of almost incredible ignorance on the part of young women who have recently entered into the relationship of marriage. In some cases the ignorance is more than a mere absence of knowledge—it consists too often of false-knowledge, untruthful ideas concerning matters of the most serious import. It is sad enough to think how such persons may work results harmful to themselves, but it is even sadder still to realize that these same ignorant young women must eventually gain their real knowledge through sad experience—experience paid for not only by themselves but also by their children. It is a hard saying, but a true one, that the knowledge of many young wives and mothers is to be gained by experience paid for by their (as yet) unborn children.

    The writer of the present work is one of the rapidly growing number of thinking persons who believe that the time has come to educate the race concerning the importance of sane instruction concerning the functions of sex. He, and those who think as he does, believe that the time has come to “Turn on the Light!” They believe that the importance of the subject will be realized by all intelligent persons, once that their attention is directed to the subject, and once they have considered it apart from the old prejudices and distorted customs. When public opinion on this subject is reformed, then will the taboo fall away from the body of truth; then will the subject take its place among the “respectable” topics which may be considered, discussed, and taught, without loss of caste or prestige.

    In a few decades, perhaps even much sooner, it will be regarded as quite reprehensible to permit young persons to enter into the relationship of marriage without a sane, practical knowledge of their own reproductive organism and the functions thereof, and of their physiological duties to themselves, to their companions in marriage, and to their children born or to be born. We may even see the practical application of the somewhat startling prophecy of Newell Dwight Hillis, D. D., who said: “The State that makes a man study two years before a license as druggist is given; that makes a young lawyer or doctor study three years before being permitted to practice; ought to ask the young man or young woman to pass an equally rigid examination before license is given to found an American home, and set up an American family.”

    While the information above alluded to should be given alike to the young husband and the young wife, it cannot be doubted that the latter is the one of the pair who is most in need of this kind of instruction. While both the young man and the young woman require this instruction, the need is the greater in the case of the young woman, by the very nature of the case. The sex functions and processes play a much more important part in the life of the woman than in that of the man, the protests of some of the modern feminists to the contrary notwithstanding. The careful student of the sex life of men and women frankly confesses that in both the physical and the psychical realm the sex offices make a greater demand upon the time and attention of the woman than of the man.

    The love-life of the woman is far fuller and more absorbing than is that of the man. Unhappiness concerning her love-life renders the remainder of the life of the average woman of comparatively little account; while, with a happy love-life she will put up cheerfully with the absence of many other things which are usually regarded as necessities for happiness. As a writer has said: “Essentially, a woman is made for love—not exclusively, but essentially; and a woman who has had no love in her life has been a failure.”

    The same rule operates on the physical plane. As the same writer has said: “Physically, the woman is also much more cognizant of her sex and much more hampered by the manifestation of her sex nature than man is.” The manifestation of the incidents of menstruation is a constant reminder to the woman that she is a creature of sex. The phenomenon of pregnancy is, likewise, something from which the man is free. And, finally, the menopause, or “change of life,” with its incidents greatly influencing the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the woman, is Nature’s final word to the woman that she is the active pole of sex-life. As the above-quoted writer has said: “Altogether it cannot be denied that woman is much more a slave of her sex-nature than man is of his. Nature has handicapped woman much more heavily than she has man.”

    And so, in this book, the young woman—the young wife—is directly addressed, her companion and mate being referred to only indirectly.

    PRIVATE Sex Advice to Women By R. B. Armitage, M. D.

    For Young Wives and those who Expect to be Married.

    Views: 0

  • Living with pets during MCO

    Living with pets during MCO

    Living with pets during MCO 1

    KUALA LUMPUR: Working from home (WFH) is not as easy as many people think, especially when you have young children and pets.

    Yes, even pets. To others, it might seem easy having pets in the house. After all, don’t you just let them be and you do not have to give much attention to them?

    In reality however, looking after pets is just as much a responsibility as looking after young children. A look at the postings on Facebook and Twitter will show that many see the responsibility as similar, for to them, pets are as much a member of the family as children.

    Going into 24 days of the Movement Control Order (MCO) period, which means 24 days of WFH, the stories on the social media abound of the struggles that pet owners, especially those with cats, face juggling the responsibilities of work and looking after their pets.

    Interior decorate Intan Suhaiza Razak, 35, found that there were many secrets her cats kept from her which she only found out after she started to work from home from March 18.

    “It is only now that I am really getting to know my three cats. I did not spend much time with them before but now that I am with them all day, I am slowly learning their behaviour.

    “For instance, I was shocked to find out that they could turn the tap in the kitchen sink and would play with the water,” she told Bernama.

    Auditor Amirul Iqbal Razali, 30, has found that working from home can be quite challenging when you have cats.

    “I have three, and the minute I turn on the computer, they come around demanding my attention.

    “That would be the time they want to sit on my lap and play, and ask for food, even though I had prepared everything for them. And my work-station has become their bed,” he said.

    Media practitioner Muhamad Saufee Rosman thinks his cat Ethan loves the fact that he and his housemates now have to work from home during the MCO period.

    “He is extra demanding now, maybe because he enjoys the fact that we are home now, whereas previously, he was always left alone in the house. Now, he keeps snuggling up to us all the time,” he said.

    Muhamad Saufee and his housemates do not find Ethan’s demand for attention troublesome, and in fact, he is a stress-buster to them.

    “Life is less boring with him around. Sometimes, he does get in the way, but it would be lonely without him,” he said.

    To these animal-lovers, the Health Ministry’s announcement that pets do not carry the COVID-19 virus was good news.

    “In the beginning, it was a bit worrying, so it was a relief when the ministry said that pet-owners did not have to worry and do not have to take their pets for Covid-19 screenings.

    Nurana Mukhriz, 29, who works in information technology said she cannot imagine being separated from her two cats which she had bred since five years ago.

    “I live alone, so my cats ‘Adik’ and ‘Che Yam’ are my companions. Talking to them reduces my stress level and I don’t feel so lonely during the MCO period,” she said. – Bernama

    Living with pets during MCO
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/local/living-with-pets-during-mco-EF2241413

    Views: 0

  • UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm

    UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm

    UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm 2

    LONDON: It was early spring when British scientists laid out the bald truth to their government. It was “highly likely,“ they said, that there was now “sustained transmission” of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

    If unconstrained and if the virus behaved as in China, up to four-fifths of Britons could be infected and one in a hundred might die, wrote the scientists, members of an official committee set up to model the spread of pandemic flu, on March 2. Their assessment didn’t spell it out, but that was a prediction of over 500,000 deaths in this nation of nearly 70 million.

    Yet the next day, March 3, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was his cheery self. He joked that he was still shaking hands with everyone, including at a hospital treating coronavirus patients.

    “Our country remains extremely well prepared,“ Johnson said as Italy reached 79 deaths. “We already have a fantastic NHS,“ the national public health service, “fantastic testing systems and fantastic surveillance of the spread of disease.”

    Alongside him at the Downing Street press conference was Chris Whitty, the government’s chief medical adviser and himself an epidemiologist. Whitty passed on the modelling committee’s broad conclusions, including the prediction of a possible 80% infection rate and the consequent deaths. But he played them down, saying the number of people who would be infected was probably “a lot lower” and coming up with a total was “largely speculative.”

    The upbeat tone of that briefing stood in sharp contrast with the growing unease of many of the government’s scientific advisers behind the scenes. They were already convinced that Britain was on the brink of a disastrous outbreak, a Reuters investigation has found.

    Interviews with more than 20 British scientists, key officials and senior sources in Johnson’s Conservative Party, and a study of minutes of advisory committee meetings and public testimony and documents, show how these scientific advisers concluded early the virus could be devastating.

    But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government’s top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at “moderate,“ suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak.

    “You know, there’s a small little cadre of people in the middle, who absolutely did realise what was going on, and likely to happen,“ said John Edmunds, a professor of infectious disease modelling and a key adviser to the government, known for his work on tracking Ebola. Edmunds was among those who did call on the government to elevate the warning level earlier.

    From the outset, said Edmunds, work by scientists had shown that, with only limited interventions, the virus would trigger an “overwhelming epidemic” in which Britain’s health service was not going “to get anywhere near being able to cope with it. That was clear from the beginning.”

    But he said: “I do think there’s a bit of a worry in terms you don’t want to unnecessarily panic people.”

    Johnson, who himself has sickened with the virus, moved more slowly than the leaders of many other prosperous countries to adopt a lockdown. He has been criticised for not moving more swiftly to organise mass tests and mobilise supplies of life-saving equipment and beds. Johnson was hospitalized on April 5 and moved to intensive care the next day.

    It is too soon to judge the ultimate soundness of the UK’s early response. If history concludes that it was lacking, then the criticism levelled at the prime minister may be that, rather than ignoring the advice of his scientific advisers, he failed to question their assumptions.

    Interviews and records published so far suggest that the scientific committees that advised Johnson didn’t study, until mid-March, the option of the kind of stringent lockdown adopted early on in China, where the disease arose in December, and then followed by much of Europe and finally by Britain itself. The scientists’ reasoning: Britons, many of them assumed, simply wouldn’t accept such restrictions.

    The UK scientists were also mostly convinced – and many still are – that, once the new virus escaped China, quarantine measures would likely not succeed. Minutes of technical committees reviewed by Reuters indicate that almost no attention was paid to preparing a programme of mass testing. Other minutes and interviews show Britain was following closely a well-laid plan to fight a flu pandemic – not this deadlier disease. The scientists involved, however, deny that the flu focus ultimately made much difference.

    Now, as countries debate how to combat the virus, some experts here say, the lesson from the British experience may be that governments and scientists worldwide must increase the transparency of their planning so that their thinking and assumptions are open to challenge.

    John Ashton, a clinician and former regional director of Public Health England, the government agency overseeing healthcare, said the government’s advisers took too narrow a view and hewed to limited assumptions. They were too “narrowly drawn as scientists from a few institutions,“ he said. Their handling of COVID-19, Ashton said, shows the need for a broader approach. “In the future we need a much wider group of independent advisers.”

    Michael Cates, who succeeded Stephen Hawking as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, is leading an initiative by the Royal Society, the UK’s leading scientific body, to bring modellers in from other scientific disciplines to help understand the epidemic.

    “Without faulting anyone so far, it’s vital, where there is such a lot at stake, to throw the maximum possible light on the methods, assumptions and data built into our understanding of how this epidemic will develop,“ he told Reuters.

    In a statement to Reuters, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said the government was delivering “a science-led action plan” to contain the outbreak. “As the public would expect, we regularly test our pandemic plans and what we learned from previous exercises has helped us to rapidly respond to COVID-19.”

    A LOW RISK TO THE PUBLIC

    When news came from China in January of a new infectious disease, Johnson had reason to believe his country was well prepared. It had some of the world’s best scientists and a well-drilled plan to deal with potentially lethal pandemics. Perhaps, some scientists say in hindsight, the plan made them slow to adapt.

    For many years, the Cabinet Office – a collection of officials who act as the prime minister’s direct arm to run the government – took the threat of pandemics seriously. Presciently, it rated pandemics as the Number 1 threat to the country, ahead of terrorism and financial crashes.

    At the centre of planning was a small group of scientists, among them Edmunds. His research group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine runs one of the two computer modelling centres for epidemics that have mostly driven government policy. The other is at nearby Imperial College. Edmunds remembers that early in the outbreak, the data from China were sketchy, in the period “where the Chinese were trying to pretend that this wasn’t transmissible between humans.”

    Edmunds and his colleague at Imperial, Neil Ferguson, were part of an alphabet soup of committees that fed advice into the Cabinet Office machinery around the prime minister. Both were founders of the flu pandemic modelling committee, known as SPI-M, that produced the March 2 report warning of more than 500,000 deaths. This committee had met together for nearly 15 years.

    Ferguson did not respond to a request to be interviewed for this article.

    Edmunds and Ferguson were also part of NERVTAG, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. Both too were members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, known as SAGE, that advises the government in times of crisis. SAGE reports directly to Johnson and the government’s main emergency committee, COBRA.

    At first, when NERVTAG met on January 13, it studied information from China that there was “no evidence of significant human to human transmission” of the new virus, according to minutes of the meeting. The scientists agreed the risk to the UK population was “very low.”

    The evidence soon changed, but this wasn’t reflected in the official threat level. By the end of January, scientists in China began releasing clinical data. Case studies published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, showed 17% of the first 99 coronavirus cases needed critical care. Eleven patients died. Another Chinese study, in the same magazine, warned starkly of a global spread and urged: “Preparedness plans and mitigation interventions should be readied for quick deployment globally.”

    Edmunds recalled that “from about mid January onwards, it was absolutely obvious that this was serious, very serious.” Graham Medley, a professor of infectious diseases modelling at the London School and chairman of SPI-M, agreed. He said that the committee was “clear that this was going to be big from the first meeting.” At the end of January, his committee moved into “wartime” mode, he said, reporting directly into SAGE.

    Dr Jon Read, a senior lecturer in biostatistics at the University of Lancaster, also a member of SPI-M, said by the end of January it was apparent the virus had “pandemic potential” and that death rates for the elderly were brutal. “From my perspective within the sort of modelling community, everybody’s aware of this, and we’re saying that this is probably going to be pretty bad,“ he said.

    But the scientists did not articulate their fears forcefully to the government, minutes of committee meetings reveal.

    On January 21, scientists on NERVTAG endorsed the elevation of the UK risk warning from COVID-19 from “very low” to “low.” SAGE met formally for the first time the following day about the coronavirus threat. So did COBRA, which was chaired by Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who would contract the virus himself in late March. He told reporters after the meeting: “The clinical advice is that the risk to the public remains low.”

    In response to questions from Reuters, the government’s Department of Health declined to clarify how the risk levels are defined or what action, if any, they trigger. In a statement, a spokesperson said: “Increasing the risk level in the UK is a belt and braces measure which allows the government to plan for all future eventualities.”

    Two days later, China put the city of Wuhan, where the outbreak began, into a complete lockdown. Hubei, the surrounding province, would follow. But already, 17 passenger flights had flown directly from Wuhan to Britain since the start of 2020, and 614 flights from the whole of China, according to FlightRadar24, a flight-tracking service. That meant thousands of Chinese, some of them potential carriers, had come to Britain. On April 5, scientific adviser Ferguson said he estimated only one-third of infected people reaching Britain had been detected.

    As they watched China impose its lockdown, the British scientists assumed that such drastic actions would never be acceptable in a democracy like the UK. Among those modelling the outbreak, such stringent counter-measures were not, at first, examined.

    “We had milder interventions in place,“ said Edmunds, because no one thought it would be acceptable politically “to shut the country down.” He added: “We didn’t model it because it didn’t seem to be on the agenda. And Imperial (College) didn’t look at it either.” The NERVTAG committee agreed, noting in its minutes that tough measures in the short term would be pointless, as they “would only delay the UK outbreak, not prevent it.”

    That limited approach mirrored the UK’s longstanding pandemic flu strategy. The Department of Health declined a request from Reuters for a copy of its updated pandemic plan, without providing a reason. But a copy of the 2011 “UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011,“ which a spokesman said was still relevant, stated the “working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.”

    According to one senior Conservative Party politician, who was officially briefed as the crisis unfolded, the close involvement in the response to the coronavirus of the same scientific advisers and civil servants who drew up the flu plan may have created a “cognitive bias.”

    “We had in our minds that COVID-19 was a nasty flu and needed to be treated as such,“ he said. “The implication was it was a disease that could not be stopped and that it was ultimately not that deadly.”

    While the UK was prepared to fight the flu, places in Asia like China, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea had built their pandemic plans with lessons learned from fighting the more lethal SARS outbreak that began in 2002, he said. SARS had a fatality rate of up to 14%. As a result, these countries, he said, were more ready to resort to widespread testing, lockdowns and other draconian measures to keep their citizens from spreading the virus.

    Scientists involved in the UK response disagree that following the government’s flu plan clouded their thinking or influenced the outbreak’s course. The plan had a “reasonable worst case” scenario as devastating as the worst predictions for COVID-19, they note.

    Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, and a member of the SPI-M committee, said COVID-19 did behave differently than an expected pandemic flu – for example school closures proved to be far less effective in slowing the spread of the coronavirus. But, broadly, “the government has been consistently responsive to changing facts.”

    By the end of January, the government’s chief medical adviser, Whitty, was explaining to politicians in private, according to at least two people who spoke to him, that if the virus escaped China, it would in time infect the great majority of people in Britain. It could only be slowed down, not stopped. On Jan 30, the government raised the threat level to “moderate” from “low.”

    The country’s medical officers “consider it prudent for our governments to escalate planning and preparation in case of a more widespread outbreak,“ a statement said at the time. Whitty did not respond to questions from Reuters for this article.

    A TIME TO PREPARE

    On the evening of January 31, Boris Johnson sat before a fireplace in 10 Downing Street and told the nation, in a televised address: “This is the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act in our great national drama.”

    He was talking of finally delivering Brexit, or what he called “this recaptured sovereignty.” Until that moment, Johnson’s premiership had been utterly absorbed by delivering on that challenge.

    With Brexit done, Johnson had the chance to focus on other matters the following month, among them the emerging virus threat. But leaving the European Union had a consequence.

    Between February 13 and March 30, Britain missed a total of eight conference calls or meetings about the coronavirus between EU heads of state or health ministers – meetings that Britain was still entitled to join. Although Britain did later make an arrangement to attend lower-level meetings of officials, it had missed a deadline to participate in a common purchase scheme for ventilators, to which it was invited. Ventilators, vitally important to treating the direst cases of COVID-19, have fallen into short supply globally. Johnson’s spokesman blamed an administrative error.

    A Downing Street aide told Reuters that from around the end of January, Johnson concentrated his attention increasingly on the coronavirus threat, receiving “very frequent” updates at least once per day from mid February, either in person or via a daily dashboard of cases.

    In the medical and scientific world, there was growing concern about the threat of the virus to the UK. A report from Exeter University, published on February 12, warned a UK outbreak could peak within four months and, without mitigation, infect 45 million people.

    That worried Rahuldeb Sarkar, a consultant physician in respiratory medicine and critical care in the county of Kent, who foresaw that intensive care beds could be swamped. Even if disease transmission was reduced by half, he wrote in a report aimed at clinicians and actuaries in mid-February, a coronavirus outbreak in the UK would “have a chance of overwhelming the system.”

    With Whitty stating in a BBC interview on February 13 that a UK outbreak was still an “if, not a when,“ Richard Horton, a medical doctor and editor of the Lancet, said the government and public health service wasted an opportunity that month to prepare quarantine restriction measures and a programme of mass tests, and procure resources like ventilators and personal protective equipment for expanded intensive care.

    Calling the lost chance a “national scandal” in a later editorial, he would testify to parliament about a mismatch between “the urgent warning that was coming from the frontline in China” and the “somewhat pedestrian evaluation” of the threat from the scientific advice to the government.

    After developing a test for the new virus by January 10, health officials adopted a centralised approach to its deployment, initially assigning a single public laboratory in north London to perform the tests. But, according to later government statements, there was no wider plan envisaged to make use of hundreds of laboratories across the country, both public and private, that could have been recruited.

    According to emails and more than a dozen scientists interviewed by Reuters, the government issued no requests to labs for assistance with staff or testing equipment until the middle of March, when many abruptly received requests to hand over nucleic acid extraction instruments, used in testing. An executive at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Oxford said he could have carried out up to 1,000 tests per day from February. But the call never came.

    “You would have thought that they would be bashing down the door,“ said the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity. By April 5, Britain had carried out 195,524 tests, in contrast to at least 918,000 completed a week earlier in Germany.

    Nor was there an effective effort to expand the supply of ventilators. The Department of Health told Reuters in a statement that the government started talking to manufacturers of ventilators about procuring extra supplies in February. But it was not until March 16, after it was clear supplies could run out, that Johnson launched an appeal to industry to help ramp up production.

    Charles Bellm, managing director of Intersurgical, a global supplier of medical ventilation products based outside London, said he has been contacted by more than a dozen governments around the world, including France, New Zealand and Indonesia. But there had been no contact from the British government. “I find it somewhat surprising, I have spoken to a lot of other governments,“ he said.

    Countering such criticism, Hancock, the health minister, said the government is on track to deliver about 10,000 more ventilators in the coming weeks. One reason Britain was behind some countries on testing, he said, was the absence of a large diagnostics industry at the outbreak of the epidemic. “We didn’t have the scale.”

    GAME OVER

    It was during the school half-term holidays in February that frontline doctor Nicky Longley began to realise that early efforts to contain the disease were likely doomed.

    For weeks now, doctors and public health workers had been watching out for people with flu-like symptoms coming in from China. Longley, an infectious diseases consultant at London’s Hospital for Tropical Diseases, was part of a team that staffed a public health service helpline for those with symptoms. The plan, she said, had been to make all effort to catch every case and their contacts. And “to start with, it looked like it was working.”

    But then, bad news. First, on Wednesday the 19th of February, came the shock news from Iran of two deaths. Then, on Friday the 21st, came a death in Italy and a bloom of cases in Lombardy and Veneto regions. Britain has close links to both countries. Thousands of Britons were holidaying in Italy that week.

    “I don’t think anybody really foresaw what was happening in Italy,“ Longley said. “And I think, the minute everybody saw that, we thought: ‘This is game over now.’”

    Until then, Longley said, everyone felt “there was a chance to stamp it out” even though most were sceptical it could be done long-term. But after Iran and Italy, it was obvious containment would not work. The contact tracing continued for a while. But as the cases in London built up, and the volume of calls to the helpline mushroomed, the priority began to shift to clinical care of the serious cases. “At a certain point you have to make a decision about where you put your efforts as a workforce.”

    Edmunds noted that Iran and Italy had hardly reported a case until that point. “And then, all of sudden you had deaths recorded.” There was a rule of thumb that, in an outbreak’s early stages, for each death there were probably 1,000 cases in a community. “And so it was quite clear that there were at least thousands of cases in Italy, possibly tens of thousands of cases in Italy right then.”

    Amid the dreadful news from Italy, the scientists at NERVTAG convened by phone that Friday, 21st February. But they decided to recommend keeping the threat level at “moderate,“ where it had sat since January 30th. The minutes don’t give a detailed explanation of the decision. Edmunds, who had technical difficulties and couldn’t be heard on the call, emailed afterwards to ask the warning to be elevated to “high,“ the minutes revealed. But the warning level remained lower. It’s unclear why.

    “I just thought, are we still, we still thinking that it’s mild or something? It definitely isn’t, you know,“ said Edmunds.

    A spokesman for the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, didn’t directly respond to Reuters questions about the threat level. Asked whether, with hindsight, the scientists’ approach was the right one, the spokesperson said in a statement that “SAGE and advisers provide advice, while Ministers and the Government make decisions.”

    HERD IMMUNITY

    On Sunday, March 1st, Ferguson, Edmunds and other advisers spent the day with NHS public health service experts trying to work out how many hospital beds and other key resources would be needed as the outbreak exploded. By now, Italian data was showing that a tenth of all infected patients needed intensive care.

    The following day, pandemic modelling committee SPI-M produced its “consensus report” that warned the coronavirus was now transmitting freely in the UK. That Thursday, March 5, the first death in the UK was announced. Italy, which reached 827 deaths by March 11, ordered a national lockdown. Spain and France prepared to follow suit.

    Johnson held out against stringent measures, saying he was following the advice of the government’s scientists. He asserted on March 9: “We are doing everything we can to combat this outbreak, based on the very latest scientific and medical advice.”

    Indeed, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, SAGE, had recommended that day, with no dissension recorded in its summary, that the UK reject a China-style lockdown. SAGE decided that “implementing a subset of measures would be ideal,“ according to a record of its conclusions. Tougher measures could create a “large second epidemic wave once the measures were lifted,“ SAGE said.

    On March 12 came a bombshell for the British public. Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, announced Britain had moved the threat to UK citizens from “moderate” to “high.” And he said the country had moved from trying to contain the disease to trying to slow its spread. New cases were not going to be tracked at all. “It is no longer necessary for us to identify every case,“ he said. Only hospital cases would, in future, be tested for the virus. What had been an undisclosed policy was in the open: beyond a certain point, attempts to completely extinguish the virus would stop.

    The same day, putting aside his jokey self, Johnson made a speech in Downing Street, flanked by two Union Jacks and evoking the spirit of Winston Churchill’s “darkest hour” address. He warned: “I must level with you, level with the British public – more families, many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.”

    For most Britons, it came as a shock. Several of the next day’s newspapers splashed Johnson’s words on their front pages.

    Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, who chaired SAGE, said in a BBC interview on March 13 that the plan was to simply control the pace of infection. The government had, for now, rejected what he called “eye-catching measures” like stopping mass gatherings such as football games or closing schools. The “aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not to suppress it completely.” Most people would get the virus mildly, and this would build up “herd immunity” which, in time, would stop the disease’s progress.

    But by now, the country was rebelling. Major institutions decided to close. After players began to get infected, the professional football leagues suspended their games. As Johnson still refused to close schools and ban mass gatherings, the Daily Mirror’s banner headline, summing up a widespread feeling, asked on March 13: “Is It Enough?”

    The catalyst for a policy reversal came on March 16 with the publication of a report by Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College team. It predicted that, unconstrained, the virus could kill 510,000 people. Even the government’s “mitigation” approach could lead to 250,000 deaths and intensive care units being overwhelmed at least eight times over.

    Imperial’s prediction of over half a million deaths was no different from the report by the government’s own pandemic modelling committee two weeks earlier. Yet it helped trigger a policy turn-around, both in London and in Washington, culminating seven days later in Johnson announcing a full lockdown of Britain. The report also jarred the U.S. administration into tougher measures to slow the virus’ spread.

    Ferguson was now in isolation himself after catching the virus. Testifying by video link to a committee in Parliament, he explained why he and other scientific advisers had shifted from advocating partial social-distancing measures to warning that without a rigorous shutdown, the NHS would be overwhelmed. The reason, he said, lay in data coming out of Italy that showed large numbers of patients required critical care.

    “The revision was that, basically, estimates of the proportion of patients requiring invasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, which is only done in a critical care unit, roughly doubled,“ he said.

    Edmunds had a different explanation for the policy shift.

    What allowed Britain to alter course, said Edmunds, was a lockdown in Italy that “opened up the policy space” coupled with new data. First came a paper by Edmunds’ own London School team that examined intermittent lockdowns, sent to the modelling committee on March 11 and validated by Edinburgh University. Ferguson’s revised Imperial research followed.

    Woolhouse, the Edinburgh professor, confirmed the sequence.

    Edmunds said these new studies together had demonstrated that if the British government imposed a lengthy period of tougher measures, perhaps relaxed periodically, then the size of the epidemic could be substantially reduced.

    Still, without a vaccine or effective treatments, it’s going to be hard to avoid a substantial part of the British population getting infected, said Edmunds. “Until you get to a vaccine, there is no way of getting out of this without certainly tens of thousands of deaths,“ he said. “And probably more than that.”

    Now subject to intense public scrutiny, the modelling teams at universities across Britain continue to work on different scenarios for how the world can escape the virus’s clutches. According to Medley, the chairman of the SPI-M pandemic modelling committee, no one now doubts, for all the initial reservations, that a lockdown was essential in Britain.

    Medley added: “At the moment we don’t know what’s going to happen in six months. All we know is that unless we stop transmission now, the health service will collapse. Yep, that’s the only thing we know for sure.” – Reuters

    UK PM listened to his scientists about Covid-19, but they were slow to sound the alarm
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/home/uk-pm-listened-to-his-scientists-about-covid-19-but-they-were-slow-to-sound-the-alarm-GE2237109

    Views: 0

  • Updated WHO Information Note: Ensuring continuity of TB services during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Updated WHO Information Note: Ensuring continuity of TB services during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Geneva. The World Health Organization (WHO) Global TB Programme, along with WHO regional and country offices, has developed an updated information note, in collaboration with stakeholders. This note is intended to assist national TB programmes and health personnel to urgently maintain continuity of essential services for people affected with TB during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by innovative people-centred approaches, as well as maximizing joint support to tackle both diseases. It is important that the progress made in TB prevention and care is not reversed by the COVID19 pandemic. Finding and treating people with TB remain the fundamental pillars of TB prevention and care and those would require maintained attention. This updated note has additional details on clinical management considerations to manage TB and COVID-19, as well as new information on testing.

    Updated WHO Information Note: Ensuring continuity of TB services during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Read More
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-04-2020-updated-who-information-note-ensuring-continuity-of-tb-services-during-the-covid-19-pandemic

    Views: 0

  • Information Department reminded to focus on government’s policies, activities

    Information Department reminded to focus on government’s policies, activities

    Information Department reminded to focus on government’s policies, activities 3

    PUTRAJAYA: The Information Department (Japen) should focus on its fundamental obligation, that’s to clarify to the individuals in regards to the legal guidelines, government’s insurance policies and activities, mentioned Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah (pix).

    He mentioned public perspective on the division’s integrity relies upon on its skill to clarify and disseminate info to the individuals about government’s insurance policies, and the division has by no means been entrusted with the duty to defend any politician or political get together.

    “I would like to remind Japen officers that in disseminating information, they must know how to differentiate between politics and official duties.

    “If a politician made a blunder, it is not Japen officer’s job to clarify it. The politician will have to fix it or clarify it himself,” he mentioned after attending a particular briefing with Japen officers right here at present.

    Saifuddin mentioned a cynical perspective in the direction of politics is typical in any democratic international locations, however Japen should at all times defend the federal government as all actions taken by the federal government had been for the sake of the individuals.

    “Rejection towards a political party is normal, but it must not go to the extent of rejecting the government, because that would cause (political and economic) instability in the country,” he mentioned.

    When requested on a further allowance for media personnel, who’re additionally the frontliners within the combat in opposition to Covid-19, the minister mentioned he had introduced the matter to the Cabinet’s consideration and was nonetheless awaiting suggestions.

    “I do hope media personnel, including our information officers in the field, will be given the additional allowance. It is not my decision to make, but I did raise the matter up at the Cabinet meeting,” he mentioned. — Bernama

    Information Department reminded to focus on government’s policies, activities
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/local/information-department-reminded-to-focus-on-government-s-policies-activities-FJ2209887

    Views: 0

  • 70 pregnant Malaysian women working in S’pore brought home via Johor causeway

    70 pregnant Malaysian women working in S’pore brought home via Johor causeway

    70 pregnant Malaysian women working in S’pore brought home via Johor causeway 4

    SINGAPORE: Seventy pregnant Malaysian women working in Singapore together with 10 kids and other people with disabilities have been brought home at the moment via the Johor causeway.

    The journey was made doable by the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore.

    “They were brought home in two buses. Prior to that, they gathered at the Kranji MRT Station here as early as 10am,” Malaysian Deputy High Commissioner to Singapore Muhd Radzi Jamaluddin instructed Bernama.

    Muhd Radzi stated particular consideration was given to the group as a number of the women have been nearly because of ship.

    “Every effort was taken to ensure their safe return so that their babies could be delivered in their hometowns,” he stated including that a few of them had additionally raised fears that issues would come up if their infants have been to be delivered in the republic

    “This is because both countries have imposed various conditions and restrictions on foreign visitors which were constantly changing thus encouraging them to return to Malaysia as soon as possible,” he stated.

    On March 31, the Malaysian authorities introduced that each one Malaysians who return to the nation from abroad journeys should bear quarantine for 14 days at authorities quarantine centres efficient April 3.

    The Movement Control Order (MCO) interval which took impact from March 18, has additionally compelled some Malaysians who don’t possess automobiles to stroll for about one kilometre throughout the Causeway.

    70 pregnant Malaysian women working in S’pore brought home via Johor causeway
    Read More
    https://www.thesundaily.my/local/70-pregnant-malaysian-women-working-in-s-pore-brought-home-via-johor-causeway-ND2207186

    Views: 0

  • Legal Issues Arising From Management Of Covid-19 Patients By Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem

    Legal Issues Arising From Management Of Covid-19 Patients By Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem

    Legal Issues Arising From Management Of Covid-19 Patients By Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem 5

    Legal Issues Arising From Management Of Covid-19 Patients By Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem 6


    A lot of legal issues are bound to arise as an aftermath of the outbreak of Coronavirus otherwise referred to as COVID-19.  There is therefore a need to shed light on some of the issues that may arise and how to navigate them. This article will x-ray the rights of patients, the rights of health workers and the basic minimum obligations of the government.

    The Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria 2008 lists acts that constitute professional negligence. Rule 29.4 of the Code outlines some of these acts as follows:-

    a)      Failure to attend promptly to a patient requiring urgent attention when the practitioner was in a position to do so;

    b)     Manifesting incompetence in the assessment of a patient;

    c)      Making an incorrect diagnosis particularly when the clinical features were so glaring that no reasonable skillful practitioner could have failed to notice them; 

    d)     Failure to advise, or proffering wrong advice to  a patient on the risk involved in a particular operation or course of treatment, especially if such an operation or course of treatment is likely to result in serious side effects like deformity or loss of organ, or function;

    e)      Failure to obtain the informed consent of the patient before proceeding on any surgical procedure or course of treatment when such consent was necessary; 

    f)       Making a mistake in treatment e.g. amputation of the wrong limb, carelessness that results in the termination of a pregnancy, prescribing the wrong drug, or dosage in error for a correctly diagnosed ailment, etc;

    g)     Failure to refer, or transfer a patient in good time, when such a referral or transfer was necessary;

    h)     Failure to do anything that ought reasonably to have been done under any circumstance for the good of the patient;

    i)       Failure to see a patient as often as his medical condition warrants or to make appropriate comments in the case notes of the practitioner’s observations and prescribed treatment during such visits. It also includes failure to communicate with the patient or with his relatives as may be necessary with regards to any developments, progress or prognosis in the patient’s condition.

     

    Rule 11.2 of the 2008 Code of Medical Ethics in Nigeria provides that, “A physician shall preserve absolute confidentiality on all he knows about his patient even after the patient has died.”

                 Rule 44 of the Code of Medical Ethics has extensive provisions on Confidentiality and when disclosure of information can be made. The Rule provides in part that:

    “Disclosure of information on the patient by the doctor can only be made following an informed consent of the patient in writing. It is clear that the ethic covers even such information as induced abortion, venereal disease, attempted suicide, concealed birth and drug dependence but would exclude situations in which a discretionary breach of confidentiality is necessary to protect the patient or the community from danger and this must be made clear to the patient at the time of the confidential disclosure. Where statutory notification of disease is involved, the consent of the patient is not required.”            

                Confidentiality: To Disclose Identity Of Covid-19 Patients Or Not To Disclose?

    COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Most people infected with the COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment.  Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness.[1]

    The Federal Ministry of Health confirmed the first case of COVID-19 in Nigeria on the 27th of February 2020. It is the case of an Italian citizen who works in Nigeria and returned from Milan, Italy to Lagos, Nigeria on the 25th of February 2020. In reaction to the report, the social was divided between those who want the name of the Italian disclosed and those that preferred it remains confidential. The outcry was even more when the Chief of Staff to the President tested positive according to reports from various media houses[2], but the Minister of Health decided to keep mute on the identity of the President’s aide who contacted the virus, citing confidentiality.

    It will ordinarily be wrong to disclose the medical status of someone infected with COVID-19, for instancethe case of the Italian who was the index case. However in view of the proviso to Rule 44 of the Code of Medical Ethics 2008 which provides that a discretionary breach of confidentiality is necessary in order to protect the community from danger, I am of the view that the test results of popular figures who hold strategic offices like the Chief of Staff to the President or a Governor must be disclosed to guaranty public safety. This is necessary in view of the countless number of people from all works of life they come in contact with on a daily basis.  It will be correct to have made their status public in the overriding interest of the public, since it will enable those who have come in contact with them isolate, just like we have seen in the cases of the British Prime Minister, the Bauchi State Govenor, Prince Charles, the First Lady of Canada and many more. We must commend those who announced their status in public themselves-it is the best thing to do in the interest of humanity

    The World Health Organization (WHO) provides additional guidelines for the management of coronavirus patients specifically.[3]

    Health workers should:

    •follow established occupational safety and health procedures, avoid exposing others to health and safety risks and participate in employer-provided occupational safety and health training; 

    •use provided protocols to assess, triage and treat patients; 

    •treat patients with respect, compassion and dignity; 

    •maintain patient confidentiality; 

    •swiftly follow established public health reporting procedures of suspect and confirmed cases; 

    •provide or reinforce accurate infection prevention and control and public health information, including to concerned people who have neither symptoms nor risk;

    •put on, use, take off and dispose of personal protective equipment properly;

    •self-monitor for signs of illness and self-isolate or report illness to managers, if it occurs; 

    •advise management if they are experiencing signs of undue stress or mental health challenges that require support interventions; and 

    •report  to  their  immediate  supervisor  any  situation  which  they  have  reasonable  justification  to  believe presents an imminent and serious danger to life or health.

     

    Doctors and health workers in Nigeria must endeavor to digest the guidelines in the Code of Medical Ethics as well as the WHO Guidelines for management of Coronavirus victims and ensure they work strictly by their provisions. A breach of these duties have dire consequences. 

    Options Available To Covid-19 Patients Who Are Victims Of Medical Negligence

    A Coronavirus patient who has suffered medical negligence has a number of options:

    1. He could file a complaint with the regulatory body (e.g. the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, in the cases involving a Doctor). The Doctor will in the first instance be investigated by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel, after which he will be tried by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. If found culpable,  the Doctor may be warned, suspended from practicing for a period not exceeding 6 months or in very serious cases, have his name can be removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners. The Medical and Dental Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal does not award monetary damages.

    2. A suit can be filed against the Medical Doctor, the Hospital, Agency or Government in the High Court for Medical Negligence and monetary damages will be awarded if the Defendant(s) are found culpable.

          3.  If there is an element of Crime, a report could be made to the Police who would conduct Criminal Investigation and where the investigation reveals gross negligence, recklessness or wanton disregard for life of the victim, the police can prosecute or forward the case file to the office of the Attorney General of the State for possible prosecution in deserving cases.  

    A Need To Do More For Doctors And Other Professionals In The Health Sector

    Health workers are at the front line of any outbreak response and as such are exposed to hazards that put them at risk of infection with an outbreak pathogen (in this case COVID-19). Hazards include pathogen exposure, long working  hours,  psychological  distress,  fatigue,  occupational  burnout,  stigma,  and  physical  and  psychological violence. 

    During the outbreak of Ebola more than 500 health care workers died in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra-Leone alone. We also lost some of our finest doctors and health workers to the disease in Nigeria, the most prominent being Dr. Stella Adadevoh, who is credited with having curbed a wider spread of the Ebola virus in Nigeria by placing the index patient, Patrick Sawyer, in quarantine despite pressures from the Liberian  government. As we speak, The coronavirus is waging a war of attrition against health care workers throughout the world, but nowhere is it winning more battles at the moment than in Italy and in Spain, where protective equipment and tests have been in severely short supply for weeks. In Spain 13.6% (6500) of those affected with the coronavirus are health workers and in Italy 10% (7400) of those affected with the virus are health workers. [4] In New York dozens of health workers have been affected with the virus, while hundreds are in quarantine.[5] According to reports filtering in as the time of concluding this article, three health workers have been infected with COVID-19 in Abuja, Nigeria.[6]

    Human Rights Watch research into health system collapse in Hungary and Venezuela suggests the nations’ mismanaged, underfunded, and understaffed public healthcare system is poorly equipped to handle a COVID-19 outbreak. Patients and medical experts described a lack of basic hygiene protocol, lack of isolation rooms, and a shortage of health professionals, doctors and nurses, and medical supplies in general.

    The situation is not too different in Nigeria at the moment and except something drastic is done we might be witnessing a devastating effect of the pandemic. Nigeria’s, public health capacity has been diminished by large scale public sector corruption. Medical personnel lack surgical masks and local supplies have been diverted and shipped to other markets partly due to corruption. Many states are ill-prepared to combat the impeding surge in patients. A senior health worker with a government hospital in Abuja, in an interview with Sahara Reporters, lamented the lack of quality Personal Protective Equipment for them, adding that government must invest in the protection of health workers at the frontline of the battle against the virus. He said, “The unfortunate thing is that the government is not providing us with what to work with. It is sad that our PPE are not up to the world standard and can be penetrated by viruses. Some of us (health workers) have to use our personal funds to purchase gloves as we do not trust the ones government supplied. Nigerians should please remember us in their prayers and government should provide us with what we really need to work.” [7]

    There was report that in Bauchi State a Coronavirus patient rejected the isolation centre at the Bauchi Specialist Hospital and went back home while describing it as “too dirty”.[8]  

    It is disappointing to hear that the hazard allowance for doctors and health workers is N5,000 per month in Nigeria. The amount is very paltry compared to the risks and the attendant emotional and psychological stress suffered by the health-care workers (HWCs) particularly during monumental outbreaks like this. Unfortunately, when a patient is mismanaged, these doctors and health workers bear the burden of paying huge compensation and sometimes losing their jobs. More importantly, the brain-drain in the health sector is monumental, almost all my friends who are doctors, work abroad. Unfortunately, there are concerted efforts by the US Government to engage foreign Doctors to further fortify its health work force as COVID-19 ravages. Many young Nigerian doctors are already considering the offers because the Nigerian government has paid little attention to their welfare and the welfare of the general health workforce. To stop the exodus of our doctors, who are already in short supply, the government must act fast by improving their welfare packages in line with acceptable international standards.

    The psychological needs of doctors and health workers are also often ignored. Unsafe working conditions contribute to health worker attrition in many countries due to work-related illness and injury and the resulting fear of health workers of occupational infection, including from HIV and Tuberculosis. The 2006 World Health Report – Working Together for Health reported on a severe health workforce crisis in fifty-seven countries, most of them in Africa and Asia. [9]

    Protecting the occupational health of health workers is critical to having an adequate workforce of trained and healthy health personnel. Governments at the Federal and State levels are urged to do more by complying fully with the World Health Organization’s guidelines regarding the Rights of Health Workers while combating COVID-19. Some of the rights are:

    ·         assume overall responsibility to ensure that all necessary preventive and protective measures are taken to minimize occupational safety and health risks;

    ·         provide information, instruction and training on occupational safety and health, including; Refresher training on infection prevention and control(IPC); and Use, putting on, taking off and disposal of personal protective equipment(PPE);

    ·         provide adequate IPC and PPE supplies (masks, gloves, goggles, gowns, hand sanitizer, soap and water, cleaning supplies) in sufficient quantity to healthcare or other staff caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, such that workers do not incur expenses for occupational safety and health requirements;

    ·         not be required to return to a work situation where there is continuing orserious danger to life or health, until the employer has taken any necessary remedial action;

    ·         allow workers to exercise the right to remove themselves from a work situation that they have reasonable justification to believe presents an imminent and serious danger to their life or health. When a health worker exercises this right, they shall be protected from any undue consequences; 

    ·         honour the right to compensation, rehabilitation and curative services if infected with COVID-19 following exposure in the workplace. This would be considered occupational exposure and resulting illness would be considered an occupational disease,

    ·         provide access to mental health and counselling resources; and 

    ·         enable co-operation between management and workers and/or their representatives. Etc.

    In conclusion, professional care givers for COVID-19 patients should uphold four basic principles formulated by Beauchamp and Childress in their book ‘Principles of Biomedical Ethics’ in order to protect themselves from liability for negligence. The four basic principles are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.

    Autonomy: People have the right to control what happens to their bodies. This principle simply means that an informed, competent adult patient can refuse or accept treatments, drugs, and surgeries according to their wishes. People have the right to control what happens to their bodies because they are free and rational. And these decisions must be respected by everyone, even if those decisions aren’t in the best interest of the patient.

    Beneficence: All healthcare providers must strive to improve their patient’s health, to do the most good for the patient in every situation. But what is good for one patient may not be good for another, so each situation should be considered individually. And other values that might conflict with beneficence may need to be considered.

    Non-maleficence: “First, do no harm” is the bedrock of medical ethics. In every situation, healthcare providers should avoid causing harm to their patients. You should also be aware of the doctrine of double effect, where a treatment intended for good unintentionally causes harm. This doctrine helps you make difficult decisions about whether actions with double effects can be undertaken.

    Justice: The fourth principle demands that you should try to be as fair as possible when offering treatments to patients and allocating scarce medical resources. You should be able to justify your actions in every situation. For instance, it will amount to a professional misconduct for a Health-care Worker to remove a poor man from the ventilator because a Senator was rushed in. 

    Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem is a partner in Adetola-Kazeem Legal Practice and specializes in Medical and Health Law

    Email: aadetolakazeem@gmail.com;aadetolakazeem@gaklp.com

    [1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1(Accessed on the 28th of March 2020)

    [2] https://businessday.ng/coronavirus/article/abba-kyari-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-buhari-negative/

    https://www.channelstv.com/2020/03/24/buharis-chief-of-staff-abba-kyari-reportedly-tests-positive-for-coronavirus/ (Accessed on the 28th of March 2020)

    [3] Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Outbreak: Rights, Roles and Responsibilities Of Health workers, Including Key Considerations For Occupational Safety And Health”. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-rights-roles-respon-hw-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=bcabd401_0   (Accessed on the 26th of March 2020)

    [4] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/collapsing-virus-pummels-medics-spain-italy-69789413 (Accessed on 26th March 2020)

    [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/covid-19-hits-doctors-nurses-emts-threatening-health-system/2020/03/17/f21147e8-67aa-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html (Accessed on 28th of March 2020)

    [6] http://saharareporters.com/2020/03/28/exclusive-two-nurses-one-doctor-infected-coronavirus-abuja-hospital

    [7] Supra

    [8] https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/coronavirus-patient-rejects-bauchi-isolation-centre-returns-home.html (Accessed on 28th March 2020)

    [9] https://www.who.int/occupational_health/topics/hcworkers/en/(Accessed on 26th March 2020)

     

    Opinion

    AddThis

    : 

    Original Author

    : 

    Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem

    Disable advertisements

    : 
    Legal Issues Arising From Management Of Covid-19 Patients By Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem
    Read More
    http://saharareporters.com/2020/04/01/legal-issues-arising-management-covid-19-patients-ahmed-adetola-kazeem

    Views: 0

  • Nothing Must Happen To El-Zakzaky, Shiites Warn Buhari After Kaduna Prison Unrest

    Nothing Must Happen To El-Zakzaky, Shiites Warn Buhari After Kaduna Prison Unrest

    Nothing Must Happen To El-Zakzaky, Shiites Warn Buhari After Kaduna Prison Unrest 7

    Nothing Must Happen To El-Zakzaky, Shiites Warn Buhari After Kaduna Prison Unrest 8


    Members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria have called on President Muhammadu Buhari to ensure the safety of their leader, Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, following a riot at Kaduna Prison by inmates on Tuesday. 

    The movement handed down the warning in a statement by Secretary of the Academic Forum of the movement, Abdullahi Muhammad Musa.

    SaharaReporters had earlier reported that inmates at the prison attempted a jailbreak after riot broke out over the Coronavirus pandemic in the country. 

    See Also

    Nothing Must Happen To El-Zakzaky, Shiites Warn Buhari After Kaduna Prison Unrest 9

    Breaking News

    BREAKING: Inmates In Kaduna Prison Attempt Jailbreak Over Coronavirus, One Feared Killed


    The inmates, who feared that they could contract the deadly virus going by the poor ventilation and lack of protective items in the facility, mobilised in large numbers on Tuesday morning in an attempt to break free from the correctional centre.

    Security personnel fired several gunshots around the facility to scare the inmates and bring the situation under control.

    One person was feared to have been killed during the chaos while several prison officials, who sustained injuries, were rushed to a teaching hospital in city for urgent medical attention.

    Reacting to the development, the IMN said, “Reliable information reaching us revealed that there is ongoing unrest in Kaduna Prison that started in the early hours of Tuesday, 31 March, 2020 over suspected cases of COVID-19.

    “The incident led to chaos and government is presently deploying more armed security men to the prison.

    “It is pertinent to state that his eminence, Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, and his wife Malama Zeenah Ibraheem, are being detained in the same Kaduna Prison.

    “We are rightly concerned about these developments and strongly call on all relevant authorities to ensure that the security and safety of the sheikh and his wife are guaranteed.

    “We would hold the government responsible for any harm to them.

    “It is the responsibility of government to protect all inmates in such homes, especially with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic ravaging the world.”

    The group called on the international community to help secure the release of their leader and his wife before they are infected with the virus.

    News

    AddThis

    : 

    Original Author

    : 

    Saharareporters, New York

    Disable advertisements

    : 
    Nothing Must Happen To El-Zakzaky, Shiites Warn Buhari After Kaduna Prison Unrest
    Read More
    http://saharareporters.com/2020/03/31/nothing-must-happen-el-zakzaky-shiites-warn-buhari-after-kaduna-prison-unrest

    Views: 0