Skip to main content

Reducing babies oxygen intake

This is an interesting study where 34 babies were given reduced oxygen for an average of 6.9 hours by only giving them 15% oxygen in the air they breathe rather than the normal 20%.

In 4 infants exposure to hypoxic conditions was ended early because of prolonged and severe falls in oxygen saturation.

Now this is what is called a "non-theraputic" intervention. That is something is done to the babies which is not to improve their health. That something is to reduce the amount of oxygen they breathe.

This sounds a very odd thing for anyone to agree to for their 3 month old child.

In particular (see above italics) it caused material problems for about 10% of the babies.


ecofx said…
'This sounds a very odd thing for anyone to agree to for their 3 month old child.'

From the linked report:
"We became interested in the effects of airway hypoxia on respiratory control in infants after two sets of parents attending our outpatient clinic reported that their infants had died of the sudden infant death syndrome after intercontinental flights; one infant had died between 14 and 19 hours after a flight and the other had died between 40 and 41 hours later."

"34 healthy infants (20 boys) born at term; mean age at study 3.1 months. 13 of the infants had siblings whose deaths had been ascribed to the sudden infant death syndrome."

This may help explain willingness to 'put babies forward'.

I don't know how well research into sudden infant death syndrome is progressing in general, though; I am not an expert.
john said…
Save that the circumstances were not comparable (for this you have to see the Griffiths report).

It did not test for these circumstances.
ecofx said…
I merely meant that the motivation lies in trying to understand sudden infant death syndrome and how the idea originated.

I acknowledge the statement in the link:
'We do not know whether our experimental conditions are identical to those of air travel and its effect on respiratory responses in infants.'
john said…
I would not deny that the research is motivated in part at least by a desire to know what happens.

The questions remains, however, as to whether or not the research is ethical.
ecofx said…
Maybe you are reacting strongly to the words prolonged and severe, which is understandable, I suppose.

In context, "prolonged and severe falls in oxygen saturation" are <=80% for 1 min.

Pikes peak is one area where other research has been carried out, see for example: (see paragraphs near end on newborns)

I agree that the ethics of risk-taking, by whom and for what purpose, is an important political issue. I am certainly glad to see you taking an interest in a wide range of issues.
john said…
The question is whether a reduction in the barometric pressure causes a change in breathing patterns to compensate that does not occur when only the proportion of oxygen is changed.

That is one reason why the particular experiment did not compare to the change when going to high altitude (or in a plane).
ecofx said…
Yes, with just a little thought the report could have said:
'We know that our experimental conditions are NOT identical to those of air travel', instead of what was written, as above.

As that apparently wasn't exactly the aim anyway, this was maybe just an uncarefully chosen afterthought; maybe even put in by the lawyers, who knows?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…