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.

Comments

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: http://www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/pulmonary-hypertension-high-altitude.htm (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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…