Nigeria, 33 Others Depend On Family, Paid Donors for Blood Supply

As part of activities to mark the World Blood Donor Day today, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is encouraging all countries to establish blood services based on full voluntary non-remunerated blood donations.

It decried a situation whereby 34 countries including Nigeria, are still dependent on family donors and even paid donors for more than 75 per cent of their blood supply.

The WHO's goal is for all countries to obtain all their blood supplies from voluntary, unpaid donors by 2020.

The United Nations apex health body, in a statement, yesterday, said: "Today, only 62 countries get close to 100 per cent of their national blood supplies from voluntary unpaid blood donations, with 34 countries still dependent on family donors and even paid donors for more than 75 per cent of their blood supply."

The Guardian's investigation reveals that most hospitals in Nigeria still insist on family donors and encourage paid donors.

It was found that there are known, paid blood donors parading the corridors of most teaching and general hospitals. Relatives are asked to donate blood for patients before they are transfused and when they cannot, they are referred to patronise paid donors.

The WHO said voluntary unpaid blood donations must be increased rapidly in more than half the world's countries in order to ensure a reliable supply of safe blood for patients whose lives depend on it.

This year, the theme of World Blood Donor Day is "Blood connects us all", highlighting the common bond that all people share in their blood. The slogan, "Share life, give blood", draws attention to the role that voluntary donation systems play in encouraging people to care for one another and promoting community cohesion.

WHO Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, said: "Although we have many external differences, the same vital blood pumps through all our veins. Voluntary, unpaid blood donation is the act of giving life - the greatest gift any person can give or receive."

SOURCE: GuardianNg

FG to allocate oil blocs to skilled people from Niger Delta – Kachikwu

The Minister of State for Petroleum, Mr. Ibe Kachikwu has said the President Muhammadu Buhari led Federal Government will consider people from the Niger Delta region when allocating oil blocs.

Speaking at a Town Hall in Uyo, capital of Akwa Ibom State, the Minister said though the President had not allocated any oil bloc since assumption of office but that when he eventually starts, only skilled people will benefit.

According to the Minister, the President will follow due process when he finally starts the allocation of oil blocs.

Kachikwu said, “In terms of the allocation of oil blocs to south-south indigene, since we came into position, the government has not allocated any bloc of petroleum. The president has not put any emphasis on that at all.

“He said we need to correct the mess before we begin to give advantage. Let me set something very clearly here; just like Udoma, I didn’t know the president before I got appointed here, never met him before, never spoke to him before.

“Recommendations and reputation brought me here. I haven’t been in government before, so I don’t know how it works, but since the day that I resumed, this president has never called me to give me the name of anybody, any Nigerian, north, south, east or west and say to me ‘you need to do some favour.

“On the contrary, his emphasis is that there should be no favours. Make the right decisions and be able to defend it. On the issue of oil blocs, when the time comes, it will follow very due process.

“I’m one of those who believe there’s a need to see how the south-south and corridors would benefit, because that is part of giving back. I am sure that at the appropriate time, those presented to him, he will listen to it.

“He will listen to it subject to the fact that those who have skills and the finances to develop the field will be allowed to develop the fields.”

SOURCE: Dailypostng

How assisted suicide is gradually becoming lawful in America

CALIFORNIA, America’s most populous state, became the fifth to sanction doctor-assisted suicide on June 9th. According to the End of Life Option Act, adult Californians of sound mind who have a terminal illness and less than six months to live are eligible to receive a prescription for a drug to bring about their deaths. The lethal dose is not quite as easy to procure as a course of antibiotics: the law requires patients to make a written request (verified by two witnesses and approved by two doctors) and to orally request the drugs twice, spaced out by at least 15 days. Doctors confer with the patients (reminding them not to take the drug while in public) and write the prescriptions; individuals wishing to hasten their deaths are obliged to ingest the drugs themselves. This means that patients who are unable to self-administer the medication are not eligible to receive a lethal dose of an “aid-in-dying” drug, whether or not they tell loved ones of their desire to end their lives before they become incapacitated.

In implementing this law, California largely cribbed from similar legislation in Oregon, Vermont and Washington. (The practice is also permitted in Montana due to a court ruling in 2009.) With the End of Life Options Act, the number of Americans potentially eligible to secure an early death rises to about 50m, or roughly one-sixth of the total population. But the option will likely remain the choice of few people facing the end of their lives. The law in Oregon, which pioneered doctor-assisted dying, has not spurred a rash of suicides: over nearly two decades with the Death With Dignity Act, only 991 patients have used the programme to end their lives. Another 600 or so who obtained the medication did not end up taking it.

Three-quarters of Californians support doctor-assisted dying; the law had a fairly smooth run through the state legislature, where it passed in September 2015 by votes of 44 to 35 and 23 to 15. Governor Jerry Brown, a former Jesuit seminary student, signed it the following month, noting that if he faced a prolonged and painful death, “it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill”. Opponents of the measure include disability-rights, religious and pro-life organisations, several of which are backing a legal challenge to the California law in court. The president of National Right to Life, Carol Tobias, condemns the law for having “no real safeguards”. The End of Life Option Act, she says, “shows a blatant disregard for the lives of California’s medically vulnerable citizens and sends a message to these citizens that their lives are less worthy to be lived”. The “real goal” behind the doctor-assisted dying movement, Ms Tobias claims, “is euthanasia on demand for any reason”.

This charge may be overstated, but national polls show strong support for medical aid in dying. The widely publicised case of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard—a California woman with brain cancer who travelled to Oregon to avail herself of doctor-prescribed suicide in 2014—may have pushed support even higher. Slim majorities supported the right to die from 2010 to 2013, but in 2015 a Gallup poll showed that 68% of Americans think terminally ill patients should be able to turn to their doctors for life-ending medication. This year, legislatures in 19 states and the District of Columbia have recently considered right-to-die bills. The Medical Aid in Dying Act was introduced last month in the New York Assembly. New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, is non-committal: “It’s obviously complicated and controversial and it’s going to depend on how the bill is written and what the provisions are”, he said. John Flanagan, the Republican majority leader in the state senate, seems more resistant. “This is an area where we need to be extraordinarily careful and circumspect”, he said. “We’re literally talking about life and death.”

SOURCE: The Economist