Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dev World Bioeth ; 23(2): 176-184, 2023 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36037097

RESUMO

In September 2020, Project South, along with numerous other organizations, released a report detailing abuses in a Georgia Detention Center - including forced hysterectomies. Whatever other factors are at play, one of them is an intrinsic connection between obstetric violence against pregnant migrants and immigration injustice. It is not incidental that these acts - in US detention centers, along the US-Mexico border, in Colombian hospitals and clinics - are being perpetrated on immigrant bodies. And it is not accidental or random which immigrant bodies are vulnerable to these violations. Understanding and confronting obstetric violence directed at pregnant migrants, though, requires reconceptualizing the nature of obstetric violence itself. In particular, we must recognize that obstetric violence against pregnant Latin American migrants in the United States and Colombia is a type of immigration injustice, a means to perpetrate immigration injustice, and a product of immigration injustice. As such, bioethicists need to collaborate with immigration scholars to resist it. After providing some background on the nature of obstetric violence and some ways it is perpetuated against pregnant migrants in the United States and Colombia, I will give a brief overview of how I conceptualize immigration justice. From there, I explain how this type of obstetric violence constitutes a type of immigration injustice, a means to perpetrate immigration injustice, and a product of immigration injustice. My hope is that this analysis motivates bioethicists throughout the Americas to engage with immigration scholars and activists to confront the issue more forcefully.


Assuntos
Emigração e Imigração , Gestantes , Migrantes , Violência , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Colômbia/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/etnologia , Gestantes/psicologia , Venezuela/epidemiologia
2.
J Clin Invest ; 131(13)2021 07 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33974559

RESUMO

BACKGROUNDAlthough convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at 5 sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or normal control plasma. The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSOf 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to receive normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.68, P = 0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, P = 0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected.CONCLUSIONIn adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810.FUNDINGAmazon Foundation, Skoll Foundation.


Assuntos
COVID-19/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Brasil/epidemiologia , COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/mortalidade , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Imunização Passiva , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cidade de Nova Iorque/epidemiologia , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento , Soroterapia para COVID-19
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA