Disco song helps medical providers remember CPR

It looks like the once-popular, all-too-hard-to-get-out-of-your-head, Bee Gee's song "Stayin' Alive" might, in fact, be a real lifesaver.

University of Illinois College of Medicine researchers in Peoria recently conducted a small study in which 10 doctors and five medical students who listened to the "Saturday Night Fever" tune while practicing CPR not only performed perfectly, they remembered the technique five weeks later.

The song plays at 103 beats per minute, which coincidentally, is just the right rate for CPR, per the current guidelines.

"One trouble with CPR training, Matlock said, is that most practitioners, from trained medical professionals to people who take classes at the local fire department, fail to perform the potentially lifesaving technique aggressively enough."

Further, "Both the message of the title and the mechanics of the music support the CPR message, said Mary Fran Hazinski, a nurse at Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital in Nashville and senior science editor for the heart association.

While the song's new potential use is amusing, it could save tens of thousands of lives each year. Just this year the American Heart Association (AHA) published a report entitled: Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Call to Action for Bystander Response to Adults Who Experience Out-of-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Arrest. The current recommendations are as follows:

When an adult suddenly collapses, trained or untrained bystanders should—at a minimum—activate their community emergency medical response system (eg, call 911) and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest, minimizing interruptions (Class I).


If a bystander is not trained in CPR, then the bystander should provide hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.

If a bystander was previously trained in CPR and is confident in his or her ability to provide rescue breaths with minimal interruptions in chest compressions, then the bystander should provide either conventional CPR using a 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio (Class IIa) or hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.

If the bystander was previously trained in CPR but is not confident in his or her ability to provide conventional CPR including high-quality chest compressions (ie, compressions of adequate rate and depth with minimal interruptions) with rescue breaths, then the bystander should give hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over the care of the victim.

Remember, you don't have to be trained in CPR to perform chest compressions. Many health-care providers have never done CPR, either. If you witness a sudden cardiac arrest, that person's best chance of survival is immediate chest compressions and automatic defibrillation (many public places now also have defibrillators).

Just hum to the tune of "Stayin' Alive" while doing those compressions, and the rate should be close to perfect.


Who knew that the overplayed disco song is useful not only for making white people dance badly at wedding receptions, but also for saving lives?

National Coming Out Day

Happy National Coming Out Day to all!

Gay pride and national coming out day is something that is still necessary, as we fight for equal rights in this country. While some of our opponents label gays as "non-existent," or sexual orientation as a "political identity," those of us who are actually gay know that our sexual orientation is something real and central to our happiness and well-being. Because so much of our personhood is wrapped up in who we love and make families with, equal recognition of our families by the government is only fair and just.

I think most people know this by now, as more people are coming out, and as the rest of the world realizes that gay people are often kind, loving, generous people (like most heterosexual people). Once people can put a face to a label that, for so long, was taboo, that label is no longer so scary.

In the sense that many of us in same-sex relationships are fighting for equal rights, being gay is a political identity. Yet, the very reason we seek equal rights makes it that way. The point of a National Coming Out Day, then, is to make our orientations a non-issue. A non-political-identity, if you will. The very people who critique gays for alleged "political ideologies" and "gay agendas" are the very ones who make such "agendas," if you can call it that, a necessity.

It reminds me of those who oppose gay parenting on the grounds that the children might be made fun of by their peers for having gay parents. Why should innocent gay people be punished for the intolerance of ignorant people?

For, the day we stop having to fight for equal rights, protections, and treatments is the day we will be able to stop using our sexual orientations like a political category and get on with just living our lives with the person who makes us happiest, like our heterosexual brothers and sisters. That is when the anti-gay protestors acknowledge that same-sex relationships are necessary for the happiness and sanctity of other people's lives, and not just a political football to sway ignorant masses, or to make money for a select few "pastors" of "churches." And, definitely not a mechanism to elect corrupt, often adulterous, politicians into office.

I wish everyone well on this beautiful weekend. And don't forget to come out to someone today. Whether you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or an ally, putting a face to those labels is one of the best things you can do for our fight for equality.

Those truly concerned about The AIDS

Should become a doctor or nurse and move to India or other developing countries where the problem is, by far, the largest. Thanks to unprotected heterosexual sex.

The homobigots who only care about The AIDS insomuch as it furthers their anti-gay identity politics, should also read the article, so they learn where the true spread of disease comes from.

I'm just sayin'. Sometimes it's completely obvious that even when you make all attempts to not let your homo-bigotry come out of the closet, it shines through like a rainbow.

Hatin' Palin: A double-edged sword?

Emily Bazelon, over at Slate, writes an opinion piece titled, "The Un-Hillary:
Why watching Sarah Palin is agony for women."

In it, she describes the grief that women, conservative and liberal alike, encounter when watching and listening to her flawed responses to opponents in debates"

"Conservatives express straightforward disappointment. 'I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful,' Parker writes glumly. 'Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.'"

and

"But Palin's gender is at the center of another set of reactions I've been hearing and reading among women who don't support her ticket, filled with ambivalence over how bad she is. Laugh at the Tina Fey parodies that make Palin ridiculous just by quoting her verbatim. And then cry. When Palin tanks, it's good for the country if you want Obama and Biden to win, but it's bad for the future of women in national politics. I'm in this boat, too. Should we feel sorry for Sarah Palin? No. But if she fails miserably, we might be excused for feeling a bit sorry for ourselves."

I'll admit it. While I am an Obama supporter, of course, a part of me cringes at seeing the only prominent female political figure of the moment mess up so badly, so often. She can't hack it in the big leagues, that much is obvious. But the problem with that for women is that a lot of people are going to attribute her incompetence to her gender. Because Americans really are that stupid.

Another part of me is so incredibly angry that a woman like Palin has sort of undeservedly slipped into a role that replaces uber-prepared and competent Hillary Clinton as our gender's lone representative on a major party ticket.

So put me in Bazelon's camp:

"And yet. When I watch Palin, I can't help but cringe along with Parker. Call it women's solidarity, however misplaced. I keep coming back to this prim phrase: Please, don't make a spectacle of yourself. String some coherent sentences together. Your efforts to wrap yourself in Hillary's mantle make no sense in terms of what you'd actually do in office. But if you could pull off just a bit of her debating prowess—just a bit—I'll step a little lighter when I wake up Friday morning."

Asinine, thy name is Opine

Let's talk for a minute about a post that, frankly, pissed me off. I had read that article back in March when Fitz first posted it, stopped looking at the website for several months, forgotten about it, then remembered it today due to a situation of personal aquaintances of mine, lesbians, becoming parents.

Like any anti-gay propaganda, people like Fitz and other Opine Idiots like to use isolated instances of hypotheticals or random internet "testimonials" of supposed selfishnesses or otherwise general "immorality" in loving gay and lesbian couples who are ready, willing, and able to take care of children.

In their Quixote-like quest, which involves fighting the windmills of "gay parenting" and "sex segregated marriages," these people far too often lose sight of the far more common experiences of REAL LIFE parenting. Gay or not.

I find it extremely arrogant, close-minded, inaccurate, lazy, and bigoted that a person would stoop so low as to imply lesbians (or gay men) are selfish for wanting a baby.

I mean, they are after all, people, too. Fitz and the other Opine crowd could at least acknowledge that a fundamental part of happiness and fulfillment in most people's lives involves starting a family of one's own.

For example, Fitz, in his typical pessimistic paternalism, patronizingly explains the world of The Lesbian Parent according to his own limited worldview:

"A recent comment by one of our regular posters – Marty came at the same time that a New York Times article revealed the profound selfishness some same-sex couples exhibit when conceiving children as if they were consumer goods designed to satisfy adult desire. "

He goes on in his anti-lesbionic tirade:

"The article refers to the case of Beth R. vs. Donna M. who both work in the media and met in 1999 and moved in together in 2002,.Donna M. became pregnant by artificial insemination in 2003, and just before the baby was due, the couple, who live in Manhattan, went to Toronto and took out a marriage license on Feb. 14, 2004,
'after the birth of the first child but before the birth of a second child, also by artificial insemination.'

So here we have a woman in her 40’s who bears two children in the most self-centered way imaginable. Intentionally depriving these children of their natural Father & indeed any Father whatsoever in the home. – In contrast to both adoption & divorce, these incidents cannot be plausibly severed from 'malice aforethought'

The example such 'pioneers' of selfishness set is mind-boggling. If this same example were followed by the myriad of women who find themselves husbandless as their 'baby hunger' & biological clocks start ticking loudly – we would find ourselves in a world were increasingly Children represent not the natural fruits of marriage but rather accessories born to fulfill adult’s felt needs."

But wait, it gets worse:

"So here are the real fruits of the same-sex “marriage” movement. The treating of children as consumer goods, Fathers as expendable “donors” – with children’s needs & societies interests in promoting responsible procreation all sacrificed on the alter of the ultimate narcissistic tendencies of a radicalized, selfish, and morally reprehensible few."

In other words, these LESBIANS, in contrast to actual human beings with feelings, have the audacity to use sperm donation to bear a child of their own. As opposed to the single heterosexual mother, who may or may not intentionally leave her children fatherless, LEZZZBIANS are particularily selfish, immoral, and radical because they all(?) leave their children intentionally fatherless. (Insert your nearest picture of a shaved head, armpit hair braiding femi-nazi here.)

I know. It's hard to tell exactly what Fitz' premise is. Other than, of course, calling people names.

So, is Fitz against artificial insemination in general, but not gays adopting children? We never know! You see, in the mind of the bigot, his ideas are rational only to himself. Their selective rationale for being against gay families, who are often unknowingly their neighbors, friends, and co-workers, never has a rhyme or reason. So long as it is anti-gay, it is A-OK!

In Fitz' delusional little head, he has concocted a vision of the world with strict moral and religious boundaries that his church has already laid out for him. There is no room for anything that defies a patriarchal Catholicism (his profile states that he is considering the priesthood), where every little lamb of God has a biological mommy and daddy, and divorce never happens. And so, since it is so easy for him (supposedly) to bow to this version of the world, everyone else should, as well. Regardless of their own religions, or happiness.

So let me get this straight. According to Fitz, all lesbians are "radicalized, selfish, and morally reprehensible" because of these two lesbians he read about?

So if we are able to base our opinions of lesbians based on one individual lesbian couple, let's take a look at some lesbians that I know. And, I have a hunch that I know a hell of a lot more lesbians than Fitz or Opine will ever know.

My acquaintance lesbian friends just adopted with open and loving arms a cocaine-addicted premature baby from a drug-addicted, homeless mother and father. A homeless mother and father, I might add, that practically begged the lesbians to take in their child for adoption because they know the child will have a better home than they would ever be able to provide. Might I also add that the biological parents had various other options for the baby's placement, including other family members, temporary placement, heterosexual couples, etc.

Yet they specifically chose the lesbians.

Would these same sane, working, non-drug addicted females be "morally reprehensible" and "radical" if they chose instead to artificially inseminate?

Or, are these lesbian unselfish because their baby happens to be needy and cocaine-addicted? And if that is the case, are gay and lesbian parents only fit to take such children with, uh, "special needs."

Or is it the "shotgun wedding" approach that offends Fitz? Would a loving lesbian couple be less moral if they had a shotgun wedding instead of a decade-long courtship that led to a domestic partnership? Yeah, I don't know. Fitz doesn't really know either. He, and the rest of Opine, just like to attach anti-gay venom from any article they see. Regardless of the intent of the original authors of said article.

I am positive we will never get a straight answer to any of those questions from any of the Opiners.

In their typically obtuse way, they will always revert back to their concocted ideas about the necessity of "sex integration and responsible procreation" without ever telling us why they feel that way.

It is just super-duper-important, don'tcha know?

Anyway, I can pretty much guaran-fucking-tee that their baby will never curse it's two mommies for adopting him. He will never feel a lack of love, he will never be in need of affection, food, education, warmth, or anything else that a good parent provides. By taking this baby in, the lesbian couple has already given this baby a head start that it's biological mommy and daddy would never have provided in the selfishness that drug addiction so often entails. (Yet I must commend them for their selflessness in their decision).

In fact, I bet the only ones cursing this lesbian couple for their ultimate "sin" of becoming parents, are people like Fitz. People who are so incredibly blinded by their own fear of gays and lesbians, that even when something is entirely rational, they refuse to concede the truth. Fitz and the rest of Opine Idiotorials would like to, based on misuse of this or that article, take away the rights from people like my friends. People who, for the most part, are decent, honest, hardworking folks who don't deserve to be treated like second-class citizens.

And yet the members of Opine, who let religion constrain them, bigotry guide them, and fear rule their lives are slowly losing touch with reality, while the rest of the world rejoices in the miracle of another happy family that has been created.

They will get by.

They will get by like we all do and always have. No, the laws are not fair right now, but in time that will come, too.

May the goddess bless them.

Gardasil receives regulatory approval for prevention of more cancer

On September 12, the Food and Drug Administration announced that Gardasil has received regulatory approval for the prevention of vulvar and vaginal cancer.

The news that Gardasil can prevent other types of cancers that HPV causes, of course, is not new information to most health-care providers (I hope), but at least now Merck can officially market Gardasil as such.

Merck is also investigating the vaccine's effectiveness in men (studies thus far have looked promising), and will be submitting data to the FDA later this year.

I'm crossing my fingers, for the sake of men everywhere, that the vaccine becomes FDA approved for men as well as women in the near future.

A woman against women's rights for VP?

Seriously. In case you haven't heard it already on the blogosphere, back in 2000, Alaskan Governor Tony Knowles signed legislation making it illegal for law enforcement agencies to charge victims or alleged victims of rape for their own rape kits, the city of Wasilla under Mayor Sarah Palin opted to do so anyway.

The article states,

"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.



Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.



In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."

Does most of America's women (and men) really want this woman pushing similar policies on a federal level?