Tuesday, August 28, 2012

News | Mail Online: Caesarean device that could spare thousands of babies from injury when surgeons cut through the mothers womb

News | Mail Online
Breaking UK and world news with in-depth comment and analysis, pictures and video from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Caesarean device that could spare thousands of babies from injury when surgeons cut through the mothers womb
Aug 28th 2012, 11:43

By Tanith Carey

PUBLISHED: 18:42 EST, 27 August 2012 | UPDATED: 02:15 EST, 28 August 2012

Scarred: Jack McManus, here with his mum Joanna and dad Kelvin, suffered a long scar on this head as a result of a caesarean delivery

Scarred: Jack McManus, here with his mum Joanna and dad Kelvin, suffered a long scar on this head as a result of a caesarean delivery

A new device could prevent more than 3,500 babies a year from suffering wounds when they are born by caesarean section.

Around 2 per cent of the infants delivered by caesarean in England and Wales are injured, usually when surgeons cut through the wall of the mother's womb with a scalpel to get the baby out.

Some of the cuts, most commonly found on newborns' heads or faces, cause permanent scarring. Even small nicks can put babies at risk of infections from  superbugs such as MRSA.

The new tool, invented in the US to prevent such wounds, is due to go on sale in Britain next year.

To protect infants' skin, the device – called a C-safe – has a blunt, up-turned beak. This is used to puncture a hole in the elastic womb wall.

It also has a much smaller concealed blade – which is protected by the tip. This is used to cut an opening through the wall so the baby can be lifted out.

The device is used on the womb wall instead of a scalpel, but a scalpel is  still needed to cut through the mother's abdomen. Babies born by emergency C-sections are more at risk from cuts than those born by planned caesareans. 

This is because when a woman has been in labour for a long time, her womb lining becomes very thin. If her waters have also broken, there is no cushion to protect the baby when the incision is made.

Jack McManus was left with a four and a half inch scar

Rachel Stone, of Brolex, the Californian company behind the device, said: 'A regular scalpel is too sharp – it uses too much knife to cut the uterus open when a baby is only a few millimetres below that surface.'

The disposable tool – which costs £22 – has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. It was launched in May and is being used in 70 hospitals in the US.

Logical: Consultant Gabrielle Downey, a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says the new device could be particularly helpful for junior doctors

Logical: Consultant Gabrielle Downey, a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says the new device could be particularly helpful for junior doctors

The device is being submitted to UK's regulatory health body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and is expected to be available in Europe in 2013.

Almost one in four babies delivered by the NHS in England and Wales – around 176,000 every year – are born by caesarean, three times as many as 30 years ago.

Research has found that far from fading with time, scars that develop from caesarean cuts tend to stretch as children grow.

Consultant Gabrielle Downey, a member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said she 'could see the logic' in the device – but awaited the findings on how many injuries it had prevented in the US.

She said that in most cases, cuts are caused by inexperienced surgeons who lean too hard on scalpels – or cut too deeply.

Most experienced doctors know when to start using their fingers instead of a scalpel to open the womb.

But Miss Downey added that the C-Safe may be of use to more junior doctors who don't know when to stop cutting – and also in births where it's hard for the surgeon to see what's happening.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News | Mail Online: Heathrow airport expansion: PM 'must back third runway,' says Tim Yeo

News | Mail Online
Breaking UK and world news with in-depth comment and analysis, pictures and video from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Heathrow airport expansion: PM 'must back third runway,' says Tim Yeo
Aug 28th 2012, 10:59

  • Tim Yeo attacked Mr Cameron and said he needs to be more like Margaret Thatcher and less like Harold Macmillan
  • A third runway is the only option, Yeo said, as Britain is 'falling behind' the rest of the world
  • Unless the PM backs it he will be toppled as leader, he claims

By Daniel Martin and Martin Robinson

PUBLISHED: 17:38 EST, 27 August 2012 | UPDATED: 03:21 EST, 28 August 2012

A senior Tory believes David Cameron must ask himself if he is 'a man or a mouse?' and unless he backs a third runway at Heathrow the Prime Minister will lose his job.

Former Environment minister Tim Yeo today launched an astonishing attack on his leader and urged him to ignore his Lib Dem coalition colleagues and back expansion at Britain's largest airport.

Mr Yeo, a once vociferous opponent of the scheme, warned that unless Mr Cameron is bold in his decisions he risks sinking into 'insignificance' and will be toppled as Tory leader.

Hard choices: Expansion of Heathrow would mean the demolition of homes

Hard choices: David Cameron has been told he must back expansion at Heathrow to show intent and perhaps save his job

Last night, in an article in a national newspaper, Mr Yeo said Mr Cameron must 'find his sense of mission' and drop his objection to a third runway.

'The Prime Minister must ask himself whether he is a man or a mouse,' he said.

'Does he want to be another Harold Macmillan, presiding over a dignified slide to insignificance?

'Or is there somewhere inside his heart... a trace of Thatcher, determined to reverse the direction of our ship?

'An immediate go-ahead for a third runway will symbolise the start of a new era, the moment the Cameron government found its sense of mission. Let's go for it.'

Mr Yeo said he had changed his mind over a third runway after realising the UK was 'falling behind' in aviation capacity.

His intervention comes just days after housing minister Grant Shapps hinted that a future Tory government could consider the option.

Meanwhile senior Lib Dem sources say that a third Heathrow runway will never be agreed while they are helping run the country.

Tim Yeo

David Cameron

Man or mouse? Tim Yeo has urged his leader to be bold or face drifting into 'insignificance' like some former Prime Ministers before him

During his election campaign, the Prime Minister promised not to build a third runway, in a bid to attract green voters.

But in recent months the Tories have been wavering, amid fears their stance on airport expansion could be hurting the economy.

The Lib Dems remain totally opposed, as do some senior Tories, including transport secretary Justine Greening and backbencher Zac Goldsmith.

Meanwhile London Mayor Boris Johnson is pushing for an alternative scheme – an airport on an island in the Thames estuary.

Mr Yeo, chairman of the Commons energy and climate change committee, yesterday told the BBC he had dropped his opposition to a third Heathrow runway, which had been one of his key green beliefs.

He told Radio 4's Today programme: 'This is a race in which Britain is now falling behind and we need to get back into it.

'The business world is quite clear our lack of airport capacity means they have a disadvantage competitively against the rest of Europe.' Expansion would also 'create jobs and be welcomed by the construction industry', he said.

Options on the drawing board

'The airlines are among the people pushing for this now very badly needed expansion so that we don't continue to lose out against airports like Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle, both of whom have twice as many destinations in China, twice as many flights going to China.'

However, he said, airlines might need to pay more for their emissions if capacity were to increase.

TRANSPORT SECRETARY COULD QUIT IF THIRD RUNWAY IS BACKED

Transport Secretary Justine Greening

Transport Secretary Justine Greening admitted today she would find it 'difficult' to remain in a Government which backed a third runway at Heathrow as David Cameron faced renewed pressure to approve the expansion.

Senior Conservative Tim Yeo questioned whether the Prime Minister had the character to take the politically explosive decision, which would involve tearing up the Coalition Agreement and risk a damaging split within his own party.

But the Transport Secretary, a prominent campaigner against a third runway which she fears would directly affect the quality of life of her constituents in Putney, south-west London, insisted there was now a consensus against the development.

She said a third runway would not be 'the right thing for Britain' because it would become rapidly outdated and insisted that a wholesale review of air capacity was needed.

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme whether she could continue to serve in Government if a third runway was approved, she said: 'I think it would be difficult for me to do that.

'This won't be a full length runway and it can't take the modern bigger planes we need in the long term.

'The coalition agreement is very clear, we don't support a third runway at Heathrow.'

There was a need to be 'bold' and look at including the possibility of a new hub airport like Boris Island, she said.

'It's clearly one of the options. It will be open to people to put that forward as an option.'

Mr Yeo, a former environment minister, said he had previously been against airport expansion in the South East because he believed it would 'inevitably lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions'. But he said he changed his stance after aircraft emissions were brought within an overall EU cap for all industries in January.

He argued this meant that as long as other industries continue to cut their emissions, those from aviation can increase.

'Even if we covered the whole of Surrey and Berkshire in new runways, it wouldn't actually lead to a single kilogram of extra greenhouse gas emissions taking place,' he said. Mr Yeo has faced calls to quit the climate change committee after it emerged earlier this month that he was paid £140,000 last year from the renewable energy sector.

Addressing arguments by campaigners that a third runway would lead to intolerable noise, Mr Yeo said failing to expand Heathrow could in fact lead to more noise.

He said: 'If you have a big, modern hub airport, airlines fly their most modern and quietest aircraft in there. If Heathrow falls behind, the quiet aircraft will go to Frankfurt, they'll go to Paris."

Former Labour chancellor Alastair Darling told the programme: 'Heathrow has more destinations than most other airports in the world. The advantage of Heathrow is it is there now, we can't go on putting this decision off.'

John Stewart, of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, said: 'The Department for Transport's own figures show we have sufficient capacity, even in London and the South East, until almost 2030.'

Jane Thomas, of Friends of the Earth, said: 'The Tories were emphatic there would be no Heathrow expansion in 2010, and we still expect that commitment.'

He argued that the fact that airlines have been brought within the EU cap on carbon emissions meant that airlines will have to develop greener planes to take advantage of an expanded Heathrow.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News | Mail Online: Why won't they tell me what I did wrong, asks Gatwick migration officer branded a terror risk in a secret court

News | Mail Online
Breaking UK and world news with in-depth comment and analysis, pictures and video from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Why won't they tell me what I did wrong, asks Gatwick migration officer branded a terror risk in a secret court
Aug 28th 2012, 10:57

  • The Arabic interpreter helped Special Branch interview terror suspects
  • Claims he was only suspected of associating with terrorists due to his race and Muslim religion
  • He has not even been told of the name of the terrorists he was alleged to have associated with

By Ryan Kisiel

PUBLISHED: 11:15 EST, 27 August 2012 | UPDATED: 18:47 EST, 27 August 2012

An immigration officer sacked over alleged links to Islamic terrorism has attacked the Home Office for not allowing him to defend himself against the unspecified allegations.

We don't believe in secret courts

The Arabic interpreter, who helped Special Branch interview terror suspects, had his security clearance removed in 2005, a month after returning from a year-long sabbatical in his native Yemen.

He was suspended on full pay for five years then sacked after the Home Office deemed him a risk to national security.

The 44-year-old father of three claims it was only because of his race and the fact that he is a Muslim that he was suspected of associating with terrorists, and is suing the Home Office for discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Action: The 44-year-old man, who cannot be named, was suspended and then sacked after he returned from a year's sabbatical in his native Yeman, pictured

Action: The 44-year-old man, who cannot be named, was suspended and then sacked after he returned from a year's sabbatical in his native Yeman, pictured

Rebuttal: Theresa May's Home Office refutes the allegations of discrimination and unfair dismissal

Rebuttal: Theresa May's Home Office refutes the allegations of discrimination and unfair dismissal

His employment tribunal was covered by controversial 'closed material procedures', which allow cases to be heard almost entirely in private to stop sensitive intelligence being discussed in public.

Known only as 'Mr W', he has not been told of the evidence against him as the Home Office argued it would risk national security.

The Daily Mail has led the criticism of the Government's proposed 'secret justice' system, which will let judges approve ministers' requests for closed hearings in all civil cases apart from inquests.

Mr W was told his security clearance was withdrawn from his estimated £28,000-a-year post because he had been 'identified as an associate of a network of suspected Islamist extremists who were assessed to be supporting the insurgency in Iraq'.

The Home Office added that even an innocent link to such people would put Mr W in a 'vulnerable position'.

Large parts of the hearing at the Central London Employment Tribunal have been held behind closed doors without Mr W, his legal team or the press and public allowed in court.

Instead of his chosen lawyer, he is represented by a special advocate –appointed by the Attorney-General – who has clearance to see the secret material but is forbidden from discussing the evidence with Mr W.

Due to the sensitivity of the material, the Home Office barristers did not ask Mr W anything under cross-examination and the department's witnesses said four times during proceedings they could not answer questions put to them in open court.

Mr W joined the Home Office in 1999 – the same year he was granted British citizenship.

Work: The man's last job was at Gatwick Airport as an assistant immigration officer but he then had his security clearance revoked

Work: The man's last job was at Gatwick Airport, pictured, as an assistant immigration officer but he then had his security clearance revoked

His last role before his suspension was as an assistant immigration officer at Gatwick Airport, in which capacity he could routinely check classified information and occasionally top-secret data.

Mr W, who was sacked in 2010 after an external appeal found against him, said: 'I was not told... of the identity or identities of the person with whom I am alleged to have associated. If I was told of such a person, I would have been able to explain such contact and prove my innocence, if indeed there was  such contact.

'Whilst in Yemen I met a number of people but I do not recall anyone who was fanatical or seemed of that type or who I thought was suspicious. None of my family in Yemen or the UK, immediate or extended, is remotely interested in politics or terrorism. I am certain of that.

'While going about my normal business, for example attending a mosque, I suppose I may be statistically more likely to come into contact, without knowing it, with a supporter of the insurgency in Iraq.

'I consider myself loyal to the UK and to the Home Office.'

Mr W told the tribunal last week that police had never interviewed him nor had security services asked him to assist any investigations.

The Home Office denies discriminating against Mr W's race and religion and is contesting his claim of unfair dismissal.

The tribunal has concluded and reserved judgment until a later date.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions