Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
View the original article here
TUESDAY, Nov. 17, 2009 (Health.com) — Heart patients who take certain stomach-acid-suppressing drugs to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding may be at increased risk of dying after a cardiac procedure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association (AHA) in Orlando. Researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center, in New York City, reported that patients who underwent angioplasty, a procedure to clear blocked blood vessels in the heart, were 30% more likely to die if they were taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).
It’s unclear whether the patients in the study who were prescribed these medications were sicker than those who weren’t, and thus more likely to die. The study's lead author, Joseph M. Sweeny, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai, says that he will continue to follow current guidelines on prescribing PPIs, but that he will also be "very careful" in deciding which of his patients need to be on the drugs.
Before undergoing angioplasty, heart patients are typically prescribed blood-thinning drugs such as aspirin and Plavix, which increase the risk of stomach bleeding and ulcers. In a joint statement issued in 2008, the AHA, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American College of Cardiologists indicated that PPIs could help prevent stomach bleeding in people at high risk.
But some experts have raised concerns that PPIs could make Plavix less effective because they block the action of enzymes that are crucial for metabolizing the blood-thinning drug. A number of studies have suggested that mixing the two drugs could be risky for patients, while others have not.
The study examined some 8,300 angioplasty patients who had had drug-secreting stents placed in their hearts to prop open narrowed blood vessels. In all, 17% of the patients were prescribed PPIs.
During the follow-up period, which lasted an average of two years, 602 patients died. When Dr. Sweeny and his colleagues broke patients into groups according to which PPI they were taking, they found that omeprazole (Prilosec) and pantoprazole (Protonix) were associated with an increased risk of death of 72% and 54%, respectively, in the years following the procedure.
Two other PPIs, esomeprazole (Nexium) and lansoprazole (Prevacid), were not associated with a greater risk of dying after the procedure. It’s not clear whether this means some PPIs were safer than others, says Dr. Sweeny.
“The numbers that I got were very dramatic,” Dr. Sweeny says. “You have to raise questions as to exactly what this is coming from.”
The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, he adds, because the patients who were taking PPIs may have been sicker to begin with. “What the clinical implications of this are right now I don’t know,” he says. However, the risk of death and complications after angioplasty is relatively low overall.
“The jury is still out regarding acid-suppressing medications and Plavix,” says Shoshana J. Herzig, MD, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who didn’t participate in Dr. Sweeny’s study.
Because overall mortality in the current study was greater among the patients on PPIs, says Dr. Herzig, it’s definitely possible they may have been sicker in the first place.
Even so, she says, “I think that it’s fairly clear that in patients who are on Plavix and an acid-suppressing medication, we should evaluate whether they actually need that acid-suppressing medication.” Although PPIs usually aren’t intended to be taken indefinitely, patients often wind up staying on the drugs anyhow, she says.
At least in ICU patients, Dr. Herzig says, PPIs are prescribed too often, in large part because the ulcer drugs are viewed as very safe. However, she adds, rarer side effects do come to light when a drug is prescribed to millions of people.
Any patient who is prescribed a PPI, Dr. Herzig and Dr. Sweeny agree, should ask their physician why, and find out how long they need to take the medication.
At the American Heart Association's annual Scientific Sessions meeting, more than 20,000 cardiologists and other physicians from around the country give presentations on new research and on advances in the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease and stroke.
Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
View the original article here
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Sept. 10, 2012 -- Heart attack survivors who take commonly used pain relievers have a higher risk of dying or having another heart attack, new research shows.
The Danish study adds to the evidence linking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as celecoxib (Celebrex), diclofenac (Voltaren), ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin), and naproxen (Aleve) to poorer outcomes in heart patients.
Using the painkillers after a first heart attack was linked to a higher risk for a second heart attack or death from any cause. And the risk persisted over at least five years.
Like previous studies, the new research does not prove that NSAIDs are directly responsible for these events.
But the evidence as a whole strongly suggests that the pain relievers should be used cautiously, if at all, by heart attack survivors, says Anne-Marie Schjerning Olsen, MD, who led the Danish study.
"Our results indicate that use of NSAIDs is associated with persistently increased coronary risk, regardless of the time elapsed after a [heart attack]," she says. "Thus, long-term caution is advised in all patients."
The study included data on nearly 100,000 survivors of first heart attacks, taken from Danish hospital and pharmacy registries.
Just under half of the people (44%) filled at least one prescription for an NSAID at some point after their heart attack.
Compared to those who presumably did not take NSAIDs, people who did had a 59% increased risk of death from any cause within one year of having the heart attack and a 63% increased risk over five years.
The risk of having another heart attack or dying from heart disease was 30% higher after one year in NSAID users and 41% after five years.
American Heart Association (AHA) immediate past president Gordon Tomaselli, MD, says the study is one of the first to suggest that NSAID use may be risky for many years after a first heart attack.
Tomaselli directs the division of cardiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.
In 2007, the AHA issued a statement on NSAID use in heart patients, urging doctors to carefully weigh the risks vs. benefits before recommending the drugs or prescribing them.
Tomaselli says this means carefully assessing a person's risk, which is influenced by conditions like heart failure or diabetes.
He says for many heart patients, non-NSAID painkillers like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or even short-term prescription-narcotic use may be safer pain-relief options.
"Patients who do take NSAIDs should always use the lowest dose possible to control pain for the shortest duration," Tomaselli says. Heart attack survivors should talk to their doctor before regularly using any NSAID, even those available without prescription like ibuprofen or naproxen, he says.
Even though there have been concerns about the safety of NSAID use in heart attack survivors for many years, Schjerning Olsen says most people, and many doctors, are unaware of the potential risk.
"It is important to get the message out to clinicians taking care of patients with cardiovascular disease that NSAIDs are harmful, even several years after a heart attack," she says.
The study appears today in the journal Circulation.
SOURCES: Schjerning Olsen, A.M. Circulation, Sept. 10, 2012. Anne-Marie Schjerning Olsen, MD, research fellow, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark. Gordon Tomaselli, MD, director, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; immediate past president, American Heart Association. News release, American Heart Association.©2012 WebMD, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
TUESDAY, Sept. 4 (HealthDay News) -- Longer resuscitation efforts improve the chances of survival in patients who suffer cardiac arrest in a hospital, new research contends.
The finding, published Sept. 4 in The Lancet, may be controversial, since it challenges the common belief that it's futile to extend resuscitation in patients who do not respond immediately, the study authors said.
However, study lead author Zachary Goldberger of the University of Washington said the new findings "suggest that prolonging resuscitation efforts by 10 or 15 minutes might improve outcomes."
Speaking in a Lancet news release, he added that extending resuscitation would not use up much more medical resources and have only "modest" effects on the patient's neurological health, should he or she survive.
In the study, Goldberger's team analyzed data from more than 64,000 patients at 435 U.S. hospitals who underwent resuscitation after suffering a cardiac arrest between 2000 and 2008. There was wide variation in the average duration of resuscitation attempts at the hospitals.
However, patients at hospitals where resuscitation efforts lasted the longest were more likely to be successfully revived (restoration of heart beat for at least 20 minutes) and to survive to be discharged from the hospital than patients at hospitals where resuscitation attempts were shortest.
The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge and had little or no brain damage was similar regardless of the length of resuscitation, the study found.
The researchers said their findings can't be used to define the ideal duration for resuscitation attempts, but do suggest that establishing minimum lengths of time for resuscitation may help improve outcomes in patients who suffer cardiac arrest in a hospital.
Currently, survival for these patients is low. Between one and five of every 1,000 hospitalized patients in developed countries suffer a cardiac arrest, and fewer than 20 percent of those patients survive to be discharged, according to journal background information.
Two specialists were cautious about the findings.
"It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this study," said Dr. Kenneth Ong, acting chair of the department of medicine and cardiology at The Brooklyn Hospital Center, in New York City.
"There are many variables that affect a person's survival after cardiac arrest," he said. "As the authors correctly point out, few guidelines exist to assist the resuscitation team, including the duration of the attempt. It is possible that those who survive and undergo the longest resuscitative efforts may have clinical features pointing toward success compared with those who may be judged medically futile by the caretakers and thus have a shorter period of resuscitation."
Another expert said the finding may not apply to most cardiac arrest patients.
"From clinical experience, overall survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest is quite poor when there is no clear reversible cause for the arrest," noted Dr. Robert Glatter, an emergency physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City. "However, when there is a potentially reversible cause for the arrest, successful resuscitation efforts may potentially improve. This suggests that in these limited clinical situations, there may be a window of opportunity to improve care by increasing duration of resuscitation time prior to termination of efforts."
Glatter added, however, that the study "did not demonstrate that longer resuscitation efforts resulted in a higher percentage of patients who were neurologically intact upon discharge." He believes that there is no specific, ideal duration for resuscitation and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Also, Glatter noted, "this study was purely observational, and therefore cannot directly demonstrate a causal relationship between length of resuscitation and improvements in survival."
-- Robert Preidt 
Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Kenneth Ong, M.D., acting chair, Department of Medicine and Cardiology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York City; Robert Glatter, M.D., emergency physician, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City; The Lancet, news release, Sept. 4, 2012
THURSDAY, Sept. 13 (HealthDay News) -- Although depression affects about one-third of all stroke victims, male stroke survivors are more likely to become depressed than females, a small new study suggests.
The gap may be due to men putting extra stock into the notion that they will enjoy good health, one of the researchers explained.
Many of these male stroke survivors "may be accustomed to, and value highly, being in control of their health," said study author Michael McCarthy, of the University of Cincinnati College of Health Sciences School of Social Work. "For these individuals, loss of control due to infirmity caused by stroke could be perceived as a loss of power and prestige. These losses, in turn, may result in more distress and greater depressive syndromes."
The study, published Sept. 12 in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, involved 36 people who had a first stroke within the previous 36 months. Of these stroke survivors, 16 were women and 20 were men.
The researchers assessed the participants' symptoms of depression as well as their ability to perform routine activities, such as bathing and cutting their food. They also examined the amount of uncertainty the survivors had about their health or the outcome of their stroke. The participants were asked to agree or disagree with certain statements, such as "I don't know what's wrong with me," and "I have a lot of questions without answers."
The study revealed that uncertainty about health was strongly associated with greater depression for both men and women. The researchers noted, however, that this link was stronger for the men.
The findings suggest that talking to survivors and their family members in clear, easily understood terms about the patient's health "may be an effective approach for reducing survivor distress and, ultimately, for improving rehabilitation outcomes," McCarthy said in a news release from the journal.
The researchers noted that the study was limited in size and diversity. McCarthy said that future studies with people from various social and economic backgrounds should give more data on how gender and health-related beliefs affect survivor outcomes. More research might also illuminate how women are relatively protected from depression after a stroke, compared to men.
-- Mary Elizabeth Dallas Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, news release, Sept. 12, 2012
THURSDAY, Aug. 2 HealthDay News)--the Deadly March Alzheimer is less in people age 80 or older than younger elderly, scientists have found.
The risk of developing Alzheimer's increases with age, and by 85, the risk is about 50 percent. But those who develop progressive brain disorder that at the end of life will be less aggressive than the disease whose symptoms appear in the 1960s and 1970s, according to researchers at the University of California, San Diego.
Lead researcher Dominic Holland from the University Department of neurosciences, said that doctors will need to consider these findings, assessing the elderly patients with Alzheimer 's.
"Methods of early detection, which will be based on biomarkers, as well as mental capacity, you should consider the age of the persons assessed," he said. Because the "old" elderly could deteriorate in a slightly slower rate than younger patients, doctors may not realize that these people suffering from Alzheimer 's.
The findings also have relevance for the assessment of potential Alzheimer's treatment and prognosis for patients of different Alzheimer's care costs, clinical Holland and other experts say.
There is currently no effective treatment or the treatment of Alzheimer 's, which gradually destroys the cells of the brain and robs people of memory and their ability to perform everyday tasks and communication.
The report was published online in the journal PLoS Aug. 2 one.
Study progress of Alzheimer, Holland and colleagues used data from the research initiative of the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging. They looked at more than 700 people aged 65 to 90, some with normal mental functioning, some mild symptoms of dementia and other persons suffering from Alzheimer 's.
Participants are tested every 6 or 12 months.
The researchers found that Alzheimer's patients lost mental skills to younger more quickly than older patients.
The decline among patients younger paralleled the accelerated loss of brain tissue and increase bone marrow or knob fluid Alzheimer's seen among the younger age group, compared with older patients, study authors added.
Researchers are not sure why Alzheimer's is more aggressive in younger patients. One explanation may be that older patients are decreasing trend in this slower pace for a longer period of time, in some unknown factor keeping symptoms at bay, they suggest.
Another possibility is the older patients with dementia Alzheimer 's, which can place plus the full effect of Alzheimer's in the brain. But such a diagnosis must be made with the Visual inspection, which is the only way that Alzheimer's is diagnosed, Holland noted carefully.
Alzheimer's disease currently affects an estimated 5.6 million Americans, and this number is expected to triple by 2050 as the baby boom generation ages.
Finding that previous develops the disease more aggressive is not good news for those younger older patients who suffer losses for a long time, the deterioration of their mental capacities, Holland said.
Another expert said that the findings may have implications for predicting costs of health and clinical trials.
"This is an extremely important paper about the impact on both the forecast costs of care for Alzheimer's and planning clinical trials," said Dr. Sam Gandy, Associate Director of the Mount Sinai Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
If the clinical picture in the over-85 population is milder than what is typical in populations Younger, these older patients would remain independent already and projections for the economic burden to the health care system should be adjusted, he said.
"Annual cost of 200 billion dollars in the United States now is; the projection of $ 1 trillion annually by 2050, "Gandy says.
"Maybe that $ 1 trillion is really only $ 500 to 750 billion dollars. Still catastrophic, but it is worth taking this into account, "he added in the projection.
Equally important, if the speed of the decline is less than 85 years of age at the age of 65-years, which must be taken into account during the recruitment for clinical trials, Gandy said.
For example, if all of the patients receiving the drug were more than 85 and all patients receiving inactive placebo were significantly younger, it might appear that the drug worked, when in fact the population were incorrectly matched, Gandy pointed out.
"We must know that we wanted the population to be identical as possible, but really do not know the specific of this phenomenon before," he said.
Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Dominic Holland, Ph.d., researcher, Department of neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine; Sam Gandy, M.D., Ph.d., Mount Sinai Research Chair and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry Alzheimer's and the CEO, the Mount Sinai Center for cognitive health and Associate Director, Mount Sinai Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City; Aug. 2, 2012, PLoS One, the online
Tommy Scott was not worried when his pregnant wife called to tell him she thought she was on the road with a migraine. But when he came home from work, Tommy found amber, 38 weeks pregnant, laying in their bedroom do not react with one eye open and the other closed, Moaning and vomiting.
"Rush of course everything through your head," Tommy told today's Natalie Morales. "I phoned 911 right away and the ambulance was there within 10 minutes and we were at the hospital right away. But it was crazy. "
Doctors determined that the 29-year-old Amber had a ruptured blood vessel in his brain — a condition that occurs in approximately six out of every 100,000 pregnancies.
Surgeons elected to deliver her baby by C-section, and then to operate on Amber's brain.
Initially, everything seemed fine as Amber started to come out of the anesthesia. But then things took a frightening turn and she was once again responding. Realizing that the Ambers brain had started to swell rapidly, doctors removed part of her skull to protect her brain from being crushed against the bone.
A month later, Amber woke up, but was not well enough to talk himself. All the while watching her family visited regularly, showing Amber photos of baby, Adeline, she had yet to hold or even.
"We wanted to let her know the baby was okay," Tommy told today. "Since day one we have shows her images."She started to smile a little. She always smiles now. "
On Sunday, for the first time got Amber to keep her baby and begin to care for her.
"She kept the bottle and fed her," Tommy told today. "She needs a little assistance, but the most important part, she grabbed the bottle and went right into the mouth. She knows what is going on. For the first time, smiled Adeline also. "
Amber is still got a long way to go. Doctors predict she will be in intensive rehab for weeks working to regain speech and motor skills.
But they say are positive signs.
"She now communicates with us," said Dr. Andrea Toomer, a doctor at West Jefferson Medical Center, just outside New Orleans, today. "She can tell us what she needs and what she wants, what Bothers her. She is able to ask questions about what is going on. "
It is enough for a start to Amber's mom.
"The fact that she witness Adeline now that she recognizes her, that makes me feel better," said Laura Rabalais today.
For Tommy, who had been looking forward to the day when he and his wife would be parents, it has been "bittersweet."
"Of course you satisfied," he told Morales. "I am happy that I am a father now. But of course I will be with yellow all the time, too.
"Amber was so excited for the last nine months. Her whole life, everything revolved around making sure everything was prepared for Adeline. It is so sad. But we try to include Amber in everything we can. We always tell her daily activities. We do our best to keep her informed. "
Tommy takes hope from the speed of Ambers progress so far.
"I never would have thought that we would be this much sooner, compared to where we were we first started," he told today. "She has motivation to get better, and I believe she will definitively".
More health today:
Aimee Copeland in ' high spirits ' in rehab
Fantastic MRI video shows birth from the inside
Dangerous ride? ATV deaths Prompt safety warning
About 20 months ago, Dr. Michael Wilkes of UC-Davis and a colleague wrote an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, “PSA tests can cause more harm than good.” He questioned his institution’s public event for men focusing on prostate cancer screening. Excerpts of the editorial:
“Sadly, most men are never told the facts about the test, nor are they encouraged to make their own informed decision. The UC Davis course doesn’t even acknowledge a problem with prostate cancer screening. Its expert presenters – including two urologists and a professional football player (!) – will tell you that you need to “know your (PSA) statistics” beginning at age 40. …
We can’t say why UC Davis offers this course that ignore scientific evidence, but we wonder whether it just might have to do with money. Testing for and treating PSA-identified cancer is a large part of the practice of many urologists so it may not be surprising that urology groups take a far more positive stance on the test than almost any other doctors. They also fund a pro-PSA lobby that now includes the National Football League.
Health care spending is threatening to wreak greater and greater havoc on our economy. That’s not to say we shouldn’t invest in treatments that lead to improved health, even when they’re expensive.
And UC Davis, the NFL and surgical device companies have the right in our society to promote events in order to increase their profits. But we worry when companies and doctors with a conflict of interest sponsor what could be considered an infomercial endorsement to unsuspecting men without telling them they might end up being harmed as a result of a simple PSA blood test.”
Last week, InsideHigherEd.com reported that hours after that editorial was published, UC Davis administrators kicked off a series of steps to remove Wilkes from leadership positions he had held. Excerpt:
Now, a committee on academic freedom at the university that investigated allegations of intimidation and harassment against Wilkes has found them to be true. The faculty committee said in its report, a copy of which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, that the actions of the university administrators cast doubt on its ability to be a “truthful and accountable purveyor of knowledge and services.”
The group has asked the dean and other top officials at the university’s school of medicine to write letters of apology to the professor, admit to errors of judgment, stop proposed disciplinary actions against him and take steps to prevent future violations of academic freedom.
At the end of last week, the UC Davis Academic Senate Representative Assembly voted 52-0 to:
affirms the right of academic freedom of Professor Michael Wilkes and all other faculty to publish scholarly articles and professional expert commentaries that address ethics and societally relevant critiques.call upon the Dean, Executive Associate Dean, and the Health System Counsel of the School of Medicine of the University of California, Davis, all to:1. Accept promptly and publicly responsibility for serious errors in judgment;
2. Write individual letters of apology to Professor Wilkes;
3. Rescind in writing all disciplinary actions that have been stated, proposed, or taken
against Professor Wilkes.
Also:
Resolved, That the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate expresses severe disapproval of the notion that the University of California may take legal action against professors whose scholarly publications or professional expert commentaries may be perceived by University administrators to be injurious to University interests.Resolved, That the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate calls upon the Chancellor of the University of California, Davis, within six months to:1. Take concrete steps to prevent future violations of rights of academic freedom and
report to the Davis Division the steps that have been taken to this end.
2. Have the Dean of the School of Medicine take appropriate training to prevent
academic freedom violations.
Finally, in a 50-0 vote, the Assembly added a resolution:
That the Representative Assembly condemns Health System and Campus Legal Counsels for drafting inappropriate and apparently threatening letters that violated a faculty member’s right to academic freedom.
About 20 months ago, Dr. Michael Wilkes of UC-Davis and a colleague wrote an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, “PSA tests can cause more harm than good.” He questioned his institution’s public event for men focusing on prostate cancer screening. Excerpts of the editorial:
“Sadly, most men are never told the facts about the test, nor are they encouraged to make their own informed decision. The UC Davis course doesn’t even acknowledge a problem with prostate cancer screening. Its expert presenters – including two urologists and a professional football player (!) – will tell you that you need to “know your (PSA) statistics” beginning at age 40. …
We can’t say why UC Davis offers this course that ignore scientific evidence, but we wonder whether it just might have to do with money. Testing for and treating PSA-identified cancer is a large part of the practice of many urologists so it may not be surprising that urology groups take a far more positive stance on the test than almost any other doctors. They also fund a pro-PSA lobby that now includes the National Football League.
Health care spending is threatening to wreak greater and greater havoc on our economy. That’s not to say we shouldn’t invest in treatments that lead to improved health, even when they’re expensive.
And UC Davis, the NFL and surgical device companies have the right in our society to promote events in order to increase their profits. But we worry when companies and doctors with a conflict of interest sponsor what could be considered an infomercial endorsement to unsuspecting men without telling them they might end up being harmed as a result of a simple PSA blood test.”
Last week, InsideHigherEd.com reported that hours after that editorial was published, UC Davis administrators kicked off a series of steps to remove Wilkes from leadership positions he had held. Excerpt:
Now, a committee on academic freedom at the university that investigated allegations of intimidation and harassment against Wilkes has found them to be true. The faculty committee said in its report, a copy of which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, that the actions of the university administrators cast doubt on its ability to be a “truthful and accountable purveyor of knowledge and services.”
The group has asked the dean and other top officials at the university’s school of medicine to write letters of apology to the professor, admit to errors of judgment, stop proposed disciplinary actions against him and take steps to prevent future violations of academic freedom.
At the end of last week, the UC Davis Academic Senate Representative Assembly voted 52-0 to:
affirms the right of academic freedom of Professor Michael Wilkes and all other faculty to publish scholarly articles and professional expert commentaries that address ethics and societally relevant critiques.call upon the Dean, Executive Associate Dean, and the Health System Counsel of the School of Medicine of the University of California, Davis, all to:1. Accept promptly and publicly responsibility for serious errors in judgment;
2. Write individual letters of apology to Professor Wilkes;
3. Rescind in writing all disciplinary actions that have been stated, proposed, or taken
against Professor Wilkes.
Also:
Resolved, That the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate expresses severe disapproval of the notion that the University of California may take legal action against professors whose scholarly publications or professional expert commentaries may be perceived by University administrators to be injurious to University interests.Resolved, That the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate calls upon the Chancellor of the University of California, Davis, within six months to:1. Take concrete steps to prevent future violations of rights of academic freedom and
report to the Davis Division the steps that have been taken to this end.
2. Have the Dean of the School of Medicine take appropriate training to prevent
academic freedom violations.
Finally, in a 50-0 vote, the Assembly added a resolution:
That the Representative Assembly condemns Health System and Campus Legal Counsels for drafting inappropriate and apparently threatening letters that violated a faculty member’s right to academic freedom.
Mark Cartier, 56, fell from close to the 10,000-foot level, landing on the west side of an area known as the Hogsback near Crater Rock, Sgt. Adam Phillips said.
Cartier "was described as an extremely experienced mountaineer and rock climber," Phillips said.
He had been on a standard climbing route. Other climbers who saw him fall alerted authorities.
In a statement, Cartier's wife, Deb Weekley, said her husband was a past member of Timberline Mountain Guides who "always exemplified the description of preparedness and calculated risk" and used Mount Hood "as his special playground."
"He climbed the mountain as he has done hundreds of times before," she said. "The only thing different this time was that he didn't call me saying he had made it down."
Cartier had climbed mountains in Oregon, California, Alaska, Europe and the Himalayas, his wife said.
Rescuers brought his body down off the mountain later in the day.
Cartier was one of 15 climbers who had registered at Timberline Lodge to solo climb overnight, The Oregonian reported.
Portland Mountain Rescue recommends that climbers tackle Mount Hood in groups of three or more so there are at least two people to help if someone falls.
Cartier was a close friend of many members in that rescue group, said Rocky Henderson, who was with those who helped retrieve the body.
"He had just returned from a climb in Alaska," Henderson told the newspaper. "He had done a lot of different climbs. An accident happened."
Although inexperienced climbers are advised not to climb solo, Henderson said Cartier had the skills and conditioning to do it.
"It's a personal choice," Henderson said. "Solo climbing is dangerous, but the attraction is that I'm responsible for my life and I make that conscious choice. It takes more effort."
Mount Hood, a Cascade Mountains peak that rises more than 11,000 feet about 50 miles east of Portland, is popular among climbers nationwide, but it has been the site of dozens of climbing accidents and fatalities over the past three decades. About 100 climbers were on the peak Thursday, taking advantage of a clear day.
Cartier is the fourth person — and second climber — to die on the mountain this year. The other two fatalities involved snowboarders.
Zac Snow, a 27-year-old climber from Ashland who passed the area where the man fell, told The Oregonian that "up where he was, it gets pretty steep."
Shaken by the climber's fall, he turned around and descended: "It kind of makes you adjust not why you go to the top but why you want to get to the top that day."
