Wednesday, October 19, 2011

[sehat] Digest Number 16295

Messages In This Digest (24 Messages)

1a.
Re: Share ttg flash card dunk?? From: dewijagoan@yahoo.co.id
2a.
Re: Flek pada paru-paru From: ChiciErnest
2b.
Re: Flek pada paru-paru From: F.B.Monika
2c.
Re: Flek pada paru-paru From: umialiyah_dzatil@yahoo.co.id
3a.
Re: Bls: [sehat] Imunisasi Rotavirus dan PVC From: /ghz
3b.
Re: Bls: [sehat] Imunisasi Rotavirus dan PVC From: style_cut3@yahoo.com.sg
4a.
Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online]  Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup From: F.B.Monika
4b.
Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online]  Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup From: /ghz
4c.
Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online] Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup From: arel.sha
4d.
Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online] Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup From: drjohanwidj
4e.
Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online] Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup From: agnes.ernaa@gmail.com
5.
Fwd: bingung soal batuk From: /ghozansehat
6a.
Mohon dibantu --> bingung soal batuk From: alifah davida
6b.
Re: Mohon dibantu --> bingung soal batuk From: dewijagoan@yahoo.co.id
6c.
Re: Mohon dibantu --> bingung soal batuk From: feby eboy
7.
[news] 1-2 Juta Perempuan Indonesia Lakukan Aborsi Setiap Tahun From: /ghz
8a.
[help] Minta Link bahaya waterbirth.. From: Yeptirani Syari
8b.
Re: [help] Minta Link bahaya waterbirth.. From: Monik Bunda Neisha
9a.
Re: [ask] : baby 2 bulan... Nafas grok2 n bintik2 kecil dimuka n kak From: melessa
10.
Fwd: Infants should sleep on their backs From: Billy N.
11a.
Re: hamil 27 minggu perut sering tegang From: Hoesana.Doee
11b.
Re: hamil 27 minggu perut sering tegang From: Pamelia Yulianto
12.
[news]  Consumer Health Digest #11-34, October 13, 2011=> Study ques From: /ghz
13.
Kira2 sakit apa ya? From: kiky aulia

Messages

1a.

Re: Share ttg flash card dunk??

Posted by: "dewijagoan@yahoo.co.id" dewijagoan@yahoo.co.id   dewijagoan

Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:57 pm (PDT)



Makasih ya sps share ttg flashcard nya ini .. Kalo sya sih sebenere gak pake flashcard khusus.. Paling cuma nempelin poster2 aja di dinding (ga pake edisi khusus duduk berhadapan tebak2an nama binatang) hanya main sambil kasih tau ini ayam,dll plus ngenalin langsung dg objeknya..

Sekali lg thanks buat sharingnya.. :D

Dewi
Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
2a.

Re: Flek pada paru-paru

Posted by: "ChiciErnest" chici.ernest@gmail.com

Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:58 pm (PDT)



Dear mbak Adek,

Bisa di baca disini

http://milissehat.web.id/?p=101

Semoga bermanfaat

Regards,
@chiciernest

2b.

Re: Flek pada paru-paru

Posted by: "F.B.Monika" f_monika_b@yahoo.com   f_monika_b

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:00 am (PDT)



Dear Pak Adek,

Flek paru bukan diagnosis dalam bahasa medis perlu ditanya. Kalau dilihat dari terapi medisnya yg 6 bulan arahnya kepada TB. Penegakan diagnosis TB anak harus melalui Scoring (kumulatif score hasil tes mantoux,rontgen,penular TB dewasa, dll).

Bacaan lainnya :

http://www.tbindonesia.or.id/tbnew/diagnosis-tb-pada-anak/article/6/00030052/4

F.B.Monika

2c.

Re: Flek pada paru-paru

Posted by: "umialiyah_dzatil@yahoo.co.id" umialiyah_dzatil@yahoo.co.id   umialiyah_dzatil

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:00 am (PDT)



 REPOST

Sumber: Web Site IDAI

http://www.idai.or.id/kesehatananak/artikel.asp?q=1979415144152Flek Paru Istilah yang Rancu

Informasi Singkat Tentang Tuberkulosis (TB) Anak

Banyak sekali anak-anak yang divonis sebagai flek paru dan harus menjalani hukuman minum obat jangka lama, paling tidak hingga 6 bulan. Jika ditanyakan kepada orangtuanya apa yang dimaksud flek paru. Biasanya orang tua pasien
tidak tahu, Bila ditanya lebih lanjut apakah anaknya mendapat obat yang membuat air seninya berwarna merah. Jika jawabnya "Ya" kemungkinan besar yang dimaksudkan sebagal ?flek paru? adalah Tuberkulosis / Tbc paru atau saat ini disebut TB saja.

Mengapa dokter tidak menyatakan sebagai TB?
Sebagian kalangan di masyarakat beranggapan bahwa TB bukan penyakit yang bergengsi. Beda misalnya dengan penyakit jantung yang dianggap lebih?terhormat?, Sebagian pasien tidak berkenan jika dinyatakan Sakit TB.

Khawatir pasien tidak dapat menerima, dokter berusaha menyamarkan penyakitnya dengan istilah flek paru. Saat ini umumnya pasien sudah
berpikiran terbuka dan dapat menerima jika dinyatakan Sakit TB. Sebaiknya dokter berterus terang menyatakan Sakit TB tanpa menyamarkan dengan istilah flek paru yang justru tidak mendidik pasien.

Mengapa disamarkan dengan istilah ?flek paru? ?
Flek berasal dan bahasa Belanda yang artinya ?noda?. Awalnya dari foto Rontgen paru pasien TB, yang dapat memberikan gambaran bercak-bercak putih seperti noda pada paru sehingga disebut ?flek?, Istilah flek paru tidak
pernah diajarkan di fakultas kedokteran manapun, dan juga tidak pernah disebut dalam artikel kedokteran manapun, Istilah ini rancu dan kesannya kurang menghargai kecerdasan pasien Sama halnya dengan istilah ?panas dalam?
yang laris manis digunakan dalam iklan minuman penyegar. Keduanya sama sekali tidak mempunyai rujukan di dunia medis.

Apakah semua gambaran "flek" pada paru berarti TB ?
Tidak !!! Semua penyakit di paru (dan itu banyak sekali jenisnya) dapat memberi gambaran ?flek? yang tidak dapat dibedakan dengan TB. Bahkan orang sehatpun pada Rontgen parunya akan ada gambaran bercak-bercak putih yang istilah medisnya infiltrat. Sebagai contoh Mike Tyson jika dironsen juga ada ?flek?nya, tapi dia sama sekali tidak Sakit TB. Jadi tidak bisa mendiagnosis

Sakit TB hanya dari Rontgen saja !
Gambaran Rontgen seperti apa yang menunjukkan adanya TB paru ? TB paru dapat memberikan gambaran infiltrat yang lebih khusus pada foto Rontgen, istilahnya gambaran yang sugestif TB. Misalnya gambaran miller (bercak kecil putih merata di seluruh paru), atau gambaran atelektasis (gambaran putih padat akibat pengerutan sebagian paru), dll. Sekalipun gambarannya sugestif TB, foto Rontgen saja tidak bisa dijadikan dasar tunggal diagnosis TB, tetap harus disertai gejala dan tanda sakit TB, dan pemeriksaan penunjang lain.

Jadi diperlukan pemeriksaan lain, apakah itu ?
Ya, pertama-tama jika seorang anak dicurigai Sakit TB harus dibuktikan dulu adanya Infeksi TB (adanya kuman TB dalam tubuh seseorang). Caranya dengan uji tuberkulin atau yang lazim dikenal sebagai Mantoux test. Jika hasilnya
negatif berarti tidak ada infeksi, dan bila infeksinya saja tidak ada bagaimana mungkin bisa sakit TB.

Jika hasil uji Mantoux positif apakah berarti sakit TB ?
Belum tentu. Hasil uji Mantoux positif hanya menunjukkan adanya Infeksi TB, bukan menandakan pasiennya Sakit TB. Jadi harus dibedakan antara Infeksi TB dengan Sakit TB. Orang dewasa di Indonesia umumnya sudah terinfeksi TB tanpa sakit TB, sehingga jika dilakukan uji Mantoux pada orang dewasa di Indonesia maka umumnya akan positif.

Ada yang mengatakan uji Mantoux bisa negatif padahal ada Sakit TB, apa benar?
Benar. Uji Mantoux dapat memberikan hasil negatif palsu yang disebut anergi. Anergi dapat dijumpai pada keadaan tertentu misalnya gizi buruk, Sakit TB yang berat, tifus yang berat, campak, cacar air, menggunakan obat steroid
jangka lama, dan berbagai keadaan lain yang menyebabkan penekanan sistem Imun (kekebalan) tubuh, Jika tidak ada salah satu keadaan tersebut sangat kecil kemungkinannya terjadi anergi.

Bagaimana dengan pemeriksaan darah ?
Biasanya pemeriksaan darah yang dimaksudkan untuk TB adalah LED (laju endap darah) dan hitung jenis limfosit, Kedua pemeriksaan ini nilai diagnostiknya untuk TB rendah, jauh lebih rendah dibanding foto Rontgen, sehingga hanya
digunakan sebagai data tambahan.

Adakah pemeriksaan darah lain untuk TB ?
Ada, yaitu pemeriksaan PCR dan serologis, seperti PAP TB, Mycodot, ICT dll.

Namun semua pemeriksaan itu tidak lebih unggul daripada uji Mantoux, Semua pemeriksaan itu jika positif juga hanya menunjukkan adanya Infeksi TB, tidak bisa untuk menentukan ada tidaknya Sakit TB.

Lalu apa bedanya Sakit TB dengan Infeksi TB ?
Jika orang (dewasa atau anak) mengalami Sakit TB akan menunjukkan gejala dan tanda Sakit TB. Sedangkan jika hanya terinfeksi TB tanpa sakit TB tidak akan ada gejala dan tanda sakit TB.

Apa gejala dan sakit TB pada anak ?
Gejala dan tanda Sakit TB pada anak sangat luas variasinya, mulal dari yang sangat ringan sampai sangat berat. Gejala dan tanda yang mengawali
kecurigaan Sakit TB pada anak di antaranya adalah MMBB (Masalah Makan dan Berat Badan), demam lama atau berulang, gampang / sering tertular sakit batuk pilek, adanya benjolan yang banyak di leher, diare yang sulit sembuh dll. TB juga dapat menyerang berbagai organ di seluruh tubuh sehingga bisa timbul gejala pincang jika mengenai sendi panggul atau lutut, benjolan
banyak di leher, bisa juga terjadi kejang jika mengenai susunan saraf pusat otak.

Apakah batuk lama atau berulang juga merupakan gejala Sakit TB ?
Batuk lama atau berulang merupakan salah satu gejala utama Sakit TB pada orang dewasa. Pada anak batuk lama / berulang dapat merupakan gejala Sakit TB, tapi bukan gejala utama. Pada anak ada penyakit lain yang gejala utamanya batuk lama / berulang yaitu asma. Banyak kasus asma pada anak yang keliru divonis TB. Asma dengan TB merupakan dua penyakit yang sama sekali berbeda namun sering dikelirukan.

Apakah jika ada tersebut berarti sakit TB ?
Belum tentu. Berbagai gejala tadi bukan ?monopoli? Sakit TB, tapi dapat juga
disebabkan oleh berbagai penyakit lain. Itulah sebabnya uji Mantoux sangat penting untuk menentukan dulu apakah ada Infeksi TB atau tidak, Jika tidak ada Infeksi TB, berarti berbagai gejala tadi disebabkan oleh penyakit lain.

Sebenarnya apa penyebab TB, apakah penyakit keturunan atau penyakit menular?
TB bukan penyakit keturunan, tapi penyakit menular. TB menupakan salah satu bentuk penyakit infeksi. Penyakit infeksi adalah penyakit yang disebabkan masuk dan berkembangbiaknya kuman dalam tubuh seseorang. Kuman adalah makhluk hidup yang sangat kecil sekali (mikro onganisme = mikroba = jasad renik) yang hanya dapat dilihat dengan mikroskop. Ada jutaan jenis kuman salah satu di antaranya adalah kuman TB.

Bagaimana cara penularannya ?
Ada beberapa cara penularan, tapi yang paling sering adalah melalui saluran respiratonik (pernapasan). Pasien TB dewasa dengan TB paru, jika batuk, bersin, menyanyi, atau bicara akan menghembuskan ribuan kuman TB ke udara di sekitarnya. Bila kuman ini terhirup oleh orang lain, maka orang tersebut dapat terinfeksi.

Apakah jika kita berhubungan dengan pasien TB paru dewasa, pasti akan tertular ?
Belum pasti tertular. Banyak faktor yang berperan untuk terjadinya infeksi TB. Faktor sumber penularan, lingkungan, dan faktor daya tahan tubuh. Tingkat eratnya hubungan (kontak) juga sangat berperan. Makin erat kontak (dose contact) dan makin lama, makin besar risiko tertular.

Apakah anak yang sakit TB menular dan perlu dipisahkan dari orang lain ?
Tidak ! Yang menular adalah pasien TB paru dewasa, pasien TB paru anak tidak menular sehingga tidak perlu dipisahkan apalagi dikucilkan. Yang perlu diingat, jika seorang anak terinfeksi TB, berarti ada orang dewasa sebagai
sumber penularannya yang perlu dicari dan kemudian diobati agar tidak menulari orang lain lagi

Hth

Atun

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Sinyal Bagus XL, Nyambung Teruuusss...!

-----Original Message-----
From: adek.kurnia@yahoo.co.id
Sender: sehat@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:46:11
To: <sehat@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: sehat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sehat] Flek pada paru-paru

Dears smart parents,docs n sps,

Sesuai subject mohon info dr dosc,sps bahwa keponakan saya umur 5tahun awalnya batuk pilek yg ga sembuh2.akhirnya dirontgen dan hasilnya kata dokter ada flek pada paru2nya.apa yg dimaksud flek ini TBC ?? keponakan sy harus mengkonsumsi obat selama 6 bulan kok sy ga tega aja dengernya.dirumah kami tdk ada penderita TBC.

Mohon info ato link yg bisa jd referensi utk penyembuhan keponakan sy.


Regards,
Adek
Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®

------------------------------------

Milis SEHAT mengucapkan terimakasih kepada:
- Asuransi AIA atas partisipasinya sebagai sponsor PESAT Bali 2011
- PT LG Electronics Indonesia atas partisipasinya sebagai Sponsor Tunggal FAMILY FUN DAY MILIS SEHAT 2011.

Terima kasih & penghargaan sedalam-dalamnya kepada : HBTLaw, PT.Intiland, dan PT. Permata Bank Tbk. yang telah dan konsisten mensponsori program kami, PESAT (Program Edukasi Kesehatan Anak Untuk Orang Tua)."

"Milis SEHAT didukung oleh : CBN Net Internet Access &Website.
=================================================================
Milis Sehat thanks to:
- AIA Insurance as sponsor for PESAT Bali 2011
- PT LG Electronics Indonesia as exclusive partner of FAMILY FUN DAY MILIS SEHAT 2011.

Our biggest gratitude to: HBTLaw, PT. Intiland, and PT. Permata Bank Tbk. who have consistently sponsored our program, PESAT (Program Edukasi Kesehatan Anak Untuk Orang Tua)."
"SEHAT mailing list is supported by CBN Net for Internet Access &Website.

Kunjungi kami di (Visit us at):
Official Web : http://milissehat.web.id/
FB : http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milissehat/131922690207238
Twitter : @milissehat <http://twitter.com/milissehat/>
==================================================================
Donasi (donation):
Rekening Yayasan Orang Tua Peduli
Bank Mandiri
Cabang Kemang Raya Jakarta
Account Number: 126.000.4634514
==================================================================Yahoo! Groups Links

3a.

Re: Bls: [sehat] Imunisasi Rotavirus dan PVC

Posted by: "/ghz" ghozan10032005@gmail.com

Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:59 pm (PDT)



On 10/19/2011 1:17 PM, arel.sha wrote:
> Iyaaa, pernah baca jugaaa kontaminasi vaksin rotavirus ini..kayanya yang
> kaya gini-gini ya yang jadi argumen gerakan anti-vaksin tentang transmisi
> virus2 hewan percobaan ke vaksin yg beredar?
>
==> ada benarnya memang tp ndak semua.
yg nginternet...mereka cenderung hanya menerima tanpa mau
membaca/memfilter informasi yg ada di internet.
jd lebih banyak 'ngekor'.
kl kutanya lebih jauh asal percaya gitu aja......pokoknya bahannya ndak
jelas...bla..bla.....
jaman rasul dulu ndak ada..bla..bla.......
ujung2nya jualan...tapi kl dibilang begini marah gak mau
ngaku..contohnya ada member milis ini, ntah kl sudah unsub sendiri saya
belum ngecek.
ditanya diklarifikasi /tabayyun baik2 ndak dijawab.......lebih bagus ibu
salamah sh.hajjam...terang2an dia jualan/penterapi.
rupa2nya niru gaya joe mercola atau mike adam yg punya naturalnews :)

salamku
bapakghozan

3b.

Re: Bls: [sehat] Imunisasi Rotavirus dan PVC

Posted by: "style_cut3@yahoo.com.sg" style_cut3@yahoo.com.sg   style_cut3

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:41 am (PDT)



Mumpung dibahas lagi,,

Mbak ami,,klo udah nemu ttg totateq ama rotarex mau donk infonya,,,

Dear sp's & doc's,

Antara rotarex ama rotateq mana y yg plg bagus & direkomendasikan?
Soalnya tgl 31 Okt nanti, bella dijadwalkan rotarex ama dsa-nya.

Makasih yaa,
Gayatri (mommynya bella)
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Sinyal Bagus XL, Nyambung Teruuusss...!
4a.

Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online]  Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup

Posted by: "F.B.Monika" f_monika_b@yahoo.com   f_monika_b

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:05 am (PDT)



Mba Maya :
boleh tahu apa maksudnya pasien nakal pak dokter?

Monik :
Kalau biaya kesehatan full ditanggung perusahaan tempat bekerja (tanpa limit) nakal itu ya sedikit2 'berobat'..Pernah dengar kasus pasien menjual kembali obat2 an yg dia punya..

F.B.Monika

4b.

Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online]  Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup

Posted by: "/ghz" ghozan10032005@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:12 am (PDT)



On 10/19/2011 2:13 PM, F.B.Monika wrote:
> Monik :
> Kalau biaya kesehatan full ditanggung perusahaan tempat bekerja (tanpa limit) nakal itu ya sedikit2 'berobat'..Pernah dengar kasus pasien menjual kembali obat2 an yg dia punya..
>
==> tempatku ada.....
jd ada semacam mafia juga...:)
asuransi biasanya punya daftar black list oknum dokter begini.
motifnya buat buruh banyak : ada yg karena utk sekolah anak...utk biaya
makan karena gaji tak cukup buat bayar setoran ini dan itu...ada yg pure
di jadikan pendapatan....nah ini yg masuk mafioso...kl tak salah
dipidanakan.
cuma nasib....yg dipidana cuma buruhnya.....oknum dokternya cuma sekedar
di black list...logisnya dua-2nya melakukann permufakatan jahat harusnya
kena.

salam prihatin
bapakeghozan

4c.

Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online] Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup

Posted by: "arel.sha" levenons@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:13 am (PDT)



Pasien nakal kalo di kantor saya; reimburse biaya kacamata dengan resep dan
diagnosa palsu..lumayan turun 1.25 juta/tahun, dan prakteknya sudah
bertahun-tahun.

Atau kontrol kulit di klinik kulit dengan obat2an mahal (sebenarnya ini
di-consider sbg perawatan kecantikan yg tidak ditanggung kantor),
tapi klaim-nya bilang penyakit kulit dsb. Tango deh sama dokternya...

Arel.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

4d.

Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online] Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup

Posted by: "drjohanwidj" drjohanwidj@yahoo.com   drjohanwidj

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:27 am (PDT)



wah baru tahu saya ada yg jual obat, resep kaca mata, & perawatan kulit. Dulu sih ada apotek yg bisa beli susu diapers vitamin dll, tapi yg nongol di kwitansi adalah merk obat. Kalau pasien minta beli surat sakit sih sudah bosen.
Tentang kwitansi: biasanya saya hanya tandatangan aja tuh, saya gak isi-isi lagi detail di formulir asuransi. Mungkin lain kali baiknya saya isi sendiri & selengkap mungkin.

Johan Widjaja

4e.

Re: re : FW: [Hukum-Online] Penyebab Harga Obat Mahal - Dokter Raup

Posted by: "agnes.ernaa@gmail.com" agnes.ernaa@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:44 am (PDT)




Dr Johan :
saya gak isi-isi lagi detail di formulir asuransi. Mungkin lain kali baiknya saya isi sendiri & selengkap mungkin.

Saya:
Iya Dokter, dulu waktu sy masih kerja di Medical record bag klaim ada pasien yg oleh Dokternya sudah ditandatangani form asuransinya tanpa diisi dan tdk diserahkan ke MR, yg ada pasien tsb mengisi hal2 yg tidak sesuai. Untung setelah dibuktikan dgn Rekam Medis ga terlalu panjang urusannya....

---
BR,
-agnes esti-

5.

Fwd: bingung soal batuk

Posted by: "/ghozansehat" ghozansehat@yahoo.com.sg   ghozansehat

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:14 am (PDT)





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: bingung soal batuk
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:03:12 +0800 (SGT)
From: Sundari Saptiani <ayetea_477@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Sundari Saptiani <ayetea_477@yahoo.com>
To: sehat-owner@yahoogroups.com <sehat-owner@yahoogroups.com>

saya masih bingung,
sudah 3 bulan sekarang najla batuk pilek, tapi gitu sembuh kena angin
batpil lagi, kadang dah sembuh tapi nafasnya masih bunyi ada dahaknya.
alhamdulillah anaknya tetap ceria, banyak makannya.
tapi khawatirnya gapapa kalau terlalu lama seperti itu.
pernah dibawa ke DSA, dikasih obat, seminggu tapi masih tetap jadi saya
hentikan.
apa yang harus saya lakukan?
oh iya maaf ya, kalau dr. Wati balas emailnya dimana ya? ga langsung ke
email kita ya
di bunga rampai agak susah lihatnya.
terima kasih banget untuk yang mau share

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

6a.

Mohon dibantu --> bingung soal batuk

Posted by: "alifah davida" alifah.davida@gmail.com   alifah_davida

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:15 am (PDT)



Saya lempar ke milis ya Mbak Sundari, dipelototin saja milisnya, email Bunda
Wati ada kok, nyelip di sana sini.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sundari Saptiani <ayetea_477@yahoo.com>
Date: 2011/10/19
Subject: bingung soal batuk

saya masih bingung,
sudah 3 bulan sekarang najla batuk pilek, tapi gitu sembuh kena angin batpil
lagi, kadang dah sembuh tapi nafasnya masih bunyi ada dahaknya.
alhamdulillah anaknya tetap ceria, banyak makannya.
tapi khawatirnya gapapa kalau terlalu lama seperti itu.
pernah dibawa ke DSA, dikasih obat, seminggu tapi masih tetap jadi saya
hentikan.
apa yang harus saya lakukan?
oh iya maaf ya, kalau dr. Wati balas emailnya dimana ya? ga langsung ke
email kita ya
di bunga rampai agak susah lihatnya.
terima kasih banget untuk yang mau share

--
Regards,

--Alifah--
'challenge yourself, being smart never hurt'

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

6b.

Re: Mohon dibantu --> bingung soal batuk

Posted by: "dewijagoan@yahoo.co.id" dewijagoan@yahoo.co.id   dewijagoan

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:22 am (PDT)



Pingpong mungkin mba virusnya.. Jd ne ga sembuh2..

Dewi
Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
6c.

Re: Mohon dibantu --> bingung soal batuk

Posted by: "feby eboy" fetriplef@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:26 am (PDT)



Alergi gak mbak.. Sol

Feby

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

7.

[news] 1-2 Juta Perempuan Indonesia Lakukan Aborsi Setiap Tahun

Posted by: "/ghz" ghozan10032005@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:31 am (PDT)




Rabu, 19/10/2011 13:25 WIB
1-2 Juta Perempuan Indonesia Lakukan Aborsi Setiap Tahun

Merry Wahyuningsih - detikHealth

Yogyakarta, Tidak sedikit perempuan Indonesia yang mengalami kehamilan
tak diinginkan. Bahkan 1 hingga 2 juta perempuan Indonesia melakukan
aborsi setiap tahun. Padahal aborsi adalah salah satu tindakan yang bisa
menimbulkan banyak dampak buruk bagi kesehatan.

"Aborsi di Indonesia menurut ahli demografi kesehatan masyarakat, lebih
dari 1 juta bahkan ada yang mengatakan hingga 2 juta per tahun," ujar
Prof. Dr. Muhadjir Darwin, MPA, Ketua Panitia 'The 6th Asia Pacific
Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Right 2011', saat
konferensi pers di Grha Sabha Pramana, Yogyakarta, Rabu (19/10/2011).

Menurut Prof Muhadjir, sebagian besar dari jumlah tersebut merupakan
aborsi yang dilakukan oleh remaja. Dan sebagian besar lagi dilakukan
secara tidak aman karena tidak ada pelayanan aborsi ilegal di Indonesia.

"Di beberapa klinik ada pelayanan aborsi tapi untuk pasangan menikah
dengan alasan kegagalan kontrasepsi. Tapi tidak ada untuk remaja,"
lanjut Prof Muhadjir.

Tidak semua remaja yang mengalami kehamilan tak diinginkan melakukan
aborsi. Ada beberapa remaja yang ingin melanjutkan kehamilan dengan
berbagai cara.

"Ada remaja yang ingin melanjutkan kehamilan dengan meminta si pria
bertanggungjawab. Tapi itu kan tidak mudah dan waktu terus berjalan.
Sambil menunggu waktu itu kehamilannya semakin besar dan ternyata ingin
digugurkan tapi sudah terlambat dan berisiko," jelas Prof Muhadjir.

Menurut Prof Muhadjir, harus ada jasa pelayanan kesehatan yang
dikhususkan untuk remaja, meski status mereka tidak menikah dan ingin
melanjutkan kehamilan.

"Banyak remaja yang malu ke dokter karena takut dianggap aib. Harus ada
jasa pelayanan khusus, tidak perlu ada klinik khusus remaja tapi secara
umum ada jam khusus untuk remaja sehingga tidak malu. Termasuk untuk
remaja yang mengalami kehamilan tidak diinginkan," lanjut Prof Muhadjir.

Aborsi bukanlah suatu prosedur medis yang sederhana. Jika dilakukan
secara sembarangan dapat menimbulkan risiko kesehatan yang serius.
Bahkan bagi beberapa perempuan hal ini dapat mempengaruhi fisik,
emosional dan spiritualnya.

Komplikasi serius yang bisa timbul akibat aborsi adalah:
1. Pendarahan hebat.
Jika leher rahim robek atau terbuka lebar akan menimbukan pendarahan
yang dapat berbahaya bagi keselamatan ibu. Terkadang dibutuhkan
pembedahan untuk menghentikan pendarahan tersebut.

2. Infeksi.
Infeksi dapat disebabkan oleh alat medis tidak steril yang dimasukkan ke
dalam rahim atau sisa janin yang tidak dibersihkan dengan benar.

3. Aborsi tidak sempurna.
Adanya bagian dari janin yang tersisa di dalam rahim sehingga dapat
menimbulkan perdarahan atau infeksi.

4. Sepsis (keracunan darah)
Biasanya terjadi jika aborsi menyebabkan infeksi tubuh secara total yang
kemungkinan terburuknya menyebabkan kematian.

5. Kerusakan leher rahim.
Kerusakan ini terjadi akibat leher rahim yang terpotong, robek atau
rusak akibat alat-alat aborsi yang digunakan.

6. Kerusakan organ lain.
Saat alat dimasukkan ke dalam rahim, maka ada kemungkinan alat tersebut
menyebabkan kerusakan pada organ terdekat seperti usus atau kandung kemih.

7. Kematian.
Meskipun komplikasi ini jarang terjadi, tapi kematian bisa terjadi jika
aborsi menyebabkan perdarahan yang berlebihan, infeksi, kerusakan organ
serta reaksi dari anestesi yang dapat menyebabkan kematian.

8 Gangguan kesehatan mental
Aborsi dapat mempengaruhi emosional dan spiritual pelakunya. Gangguan
mental kadang muncul seperti kecemasan, depresi atau mungkin mencoba
melakukan bunuh diri.

http://us.detikhealth.com/read/2011/10/19/132523/1747654/764/?992204topnews

8a.

[help] Minta Link bahaya waterbirth..

Posted by: "Yeptirani Syari" sehat.syari@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:08 am (PDT)



dear teman-teman dan dokter..

seorang sahabat ingin melahirkan secara waterbirth, aku pernah membaca bahwa
bunda melarang teknik ini, ada yang punya link tentang bahayanya gak?
kalau aku cuma ngomong: tar bayinya berisiko kemasukan air loh paru2nya..
tar dia gak percaya pula kalau aku gak punya pegangan..

makasih semuanya atas bantuannya.. ^_^

*sudah waktunya jemput Zimam dari skul, makanya sepertinya belum bisa browse
sendiri*

--
Yeptirani Syari, ~Dandanya Zee~
"kalo mo japri, ke *y.syari@gmail.com* ajah... biar gak nyelip :p"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

8b.

Re: [help] Minta Link bahaya waterbirth..

Posted by: "Monik Bunda Neisha" email.mymilis@gmail.com   charlottequaneishaandinisiswanto

Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:50 am (PDT)



Saya repost email Bunda Wati ya..

salam,

Monik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Purnamawati <>
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [sehat] Re: Tolong sharing hypnobirthing
To: sehat@yahoogroups.com

Dear Dewi
thanks sharingnya

boleh ikutan nimbrung ya
please jangan upset ya

Saya concern sekali dengan waterbirth
Mengapa?
Secara ilmiah: (please kalau mau cari info jangan di webnya water birth
karena pasti akan menonjolkan sisi positifnya ... sama juga dengan
hypnobirthing ... jadi carinya di asosiasi obstetri dan ginekologi)
1. Tidak pernah terbukti bahwa water birth berhasil menghilangkan rasa
sakit. Lebih ke arah sugesti
2. Water birth terkait risiko morbiditas dan mortalitas buat bayi
3. Water birth di negara maju dilarang dikerjakan di kehidupan sehari2
Hanya boleh dikerjakan di institusi pendidikan kedokteran dalam setting:
penelitian
Dengan catatan ... ibu diberi tahu secara jujur apa saja risikonya

berikut kutipan singkat dari beberapa penelitian:
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/110/2/409:

Water Birth—A Near-Drowning Experience

Can delivery in water cause serious adverse outcomes? Undoubtedly, the
answer is "yes." There are several reports of death attributable to drowning
resulting from poorly managed water births1 and 1 death, involving 2
experienced midwives, in which asphyxiation and water-logged lungs made
resuscitation of the infant difficult.2 The latter case led to the cessation
of water births in Sweden. In their report of 4 infants with water
aspiration that appears in this issue of Pediatrics, Nguyen et al3 provide
additional evidence that water birth does cause adverse outcomes. Their
argument for causality rests on the demonstration of radiograph appearances
of gross pulmonary edema and, in 1 infant, hyponatraemia.

A surveillance study in England and Wales found a perinatal morality rate of
1.2/1000 (5/4030; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4, 2.9) for infants
delivered via water birth.5 Compared with low-risk deliveries that are
nonwater births, the upper 99% confidence limit for the relative risk of
perinatal death after delivery in water was 3.6/1000 ([relative risk (RR):
0.9: 99% CI: 0.2, 3.6 1.2] 1.2). The risk of admission to the neonatal
intensive care unit for lower respiratory tract problems (2 explicitly
attributed to water aspiration) was 0.4% (95% CI: 0.2, 0.6%) or 1 in 270.

Other adverse outcomes included a surprising number of infants (n 5) with a
snapped umbilical cord, of whom 1 required a transfusion. This finding may
be attributable to rapid cord traction as the infant is brought to the
surface and could be remedied by lowering the water level as the infant is
born.

Nah berikutnya:

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/115/5/1413:

Underwater Births (silakan baca sendiri ya... saya kasih penutupnya saja:

The safety and efficacy of underwater birth for the newborn has not been
established. There is no convincing evidence of benefit to the neonate but
some concern for serious harm. Therefore, underwater birth should be
considered an experimental procedure that should not be performed except
within the context of an appropriately designed RCT after informed parental
consent.

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-0145

Pediatrics 2004;114;855-858

Ken Schroeter

Water Births: A Naked Emperor

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/855

Water Births: A Naked Emperor

ABBREVIATIONS. RCT, randomized, controlled trial; CI, 95% confidence
interval.

In Hans Christian Andersen's sartorial tale of a vain emperor,1 it takes a
child's vision to bring clarity to an awkward situation. Despite knowing the
naked truth, the people scold the child for speaking out and actively ignore
the issues raised by his challenge. In a sense, water births, the birthing
of an infant underwater, are much like the emperor's new clothes in that
some people believe what they wish to serve their own purpose while actively
ignoring the facts at hand and admonishing those who question their
opinions. Despite an absence of supporting evidence, proponents of water
births claim benefits and disregard concerns while continuing to fail to
subject this approach to the rigors of scientific inquiry.

This desire to ignore the facts may be particularly prevalent among
individuals who prefer nontraditional delivery techniques. In a 1989
editorial in the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, Elder2 compelled readers to put
aside concerns about a lack of research and data, essentially to feel little
need for this information when considering alternative practices, but
instead to seek a "balanced perspective" against such "rigorous analysis."
Elder wrote: "If one claims something is a fact, how should the claim be
supported? Indeed, must it be supported?" She offered that nurse midwives,
among the majority of proponents of alternative childbirth methods, should
be "pioneers," taking pride in offering unproven alternatives. By advocating
for this approach, she validated the long-recognized gap that separates
practitioners of evidence-based medicine from practitioners

who accept unproven alternatives as a basis for practice.

In the current era of natural and alternative medicine, practices such as
water births continue to be introduced without validation of their equality
or superiority to standard obstetrical practice and despite some clear
potential risks. In such a model, good alternative birthing practices cannot
be differentiated from the bad. The resulting friction creates an "us versus
them" childbirth environment that cannot serve the best interests of
patients. In a cautionary commentary, McGraw3 noted that consumer demand for
painless deliveries was originally responsible for the medicalization of
childbirth. This process took labor and delivery from midwives in the home
and brought it to the hospital under the guidance of physicians. He observed
that nurse midwives returned to the practice of childbirth only as segments
of popular sentiment decried this medicalization. Many nurse midwives (and
some physicians) offer alternative practices, the proponents of which "have
all too often made broad, sweeping, and unsupported claims." In the case of
water births, claims are made for significantly decreasing the need for
medical-surgical intervention, medications, episiotomy, and cesarean
sections as well as offering a more natural and less traumatic birth
experience for the infant. Water births are also offered to families who
seek relief from the perceived loss of control during "medical"
childbirth.4–7 Daniels, an-oft cited nonclinician proponent of water births,
noted that, "in the U.S., institutionalized medicine has virtually taken
over childbirth. It has created a plethora of procedures for the convenience
and benefit of doctors and hospital staff, rather than for the safety and
comfort of the mother and baby."7 This belief continues as a consistent
theme underwriting alternative childbirth practices. Gilbert,8 in her
commentary on an article by Nyguen et al,9 notes that "advocates of water
birth cite empowerment and autonomy over birth as one of the main advantages
but fail to give information about the potential harms of water birth."

The co-author of a surveillance- and-survey study in the British Isles on
water births (described below),10 Gilbert agrees with the risk of serious
adverse outcomes. She reminds us that women are most readily empowered when
they are provided with the information that enables them to make the best
possible decisions. The paucity of sound medical literature about water
births suggests that proponents would rather not truly empower women with
validated information but instead relegate the birth process to a more
mystical experience. Not only is such an approach unsafe, but it demeans
women who need clear information to make the best possible decisions for
themselves and their child's future.

Is there efficacy and safety in water birth at least equal to conventional
birth? Is there objective information to support each claim? Does outcome
vary by setting (ie, home water birth or hospital-based water birth)? Is
water labor without water birth efficacious and safe? Is the safety of
immersion the same as conventional births but with different problems? Women
deciding on childbirth options and the clinicians who advise them cannot
give sound informed consent without this information.

Primum non nocere (first, do no harm) is one of the basic tenets of modern
medical practice. It arose from the understanding that the physician is
compelled to demonstrate that the benefit of any medical approach outweighs
the risk and that the practice is in fact beneficial to the patient. Careful
scientific investigation and analysis are now the traditional means by which
the physician learns where a particular practice lies on the risk-benefit
spectrum. This approach is the fundamental concept of evidence-based
medicine. If a procedure or medication has merit, that value can be readily
demonstrated in a thoughtfully designed scientific study or review. In
understanding the responsibility to determine benefit while reducing risk,
physicians are continuously reassessing their practice standards. Any new
approach to care is subjected to critical peer-reviewed evaluation in
medical journals, conferences, and at the patient's bedside. Meritorious
medications and techniques will stand up to scientific testing, randomized,
controlled trials (RCTs) when applicable, whereas suboptimal approaches will
be abandoned. In the absence of such evidence-based investigation, there can
be no advances in medical practice, simply one person's opinions against
another's. The resulting chaos would be a reversion to the early history of
medicine, and the increased morbidity and mortality would be welcomed only
by malpractice attorneys. RCTs derive their validity in part from the
ethical hypothesis that one method is at least as safe and efficacious as
another and that a patient randomized into one group or the other is not at
increased risk of a poor outcome. The goal is to prove that, in fact, one
method is more efficacious than another. Proponents of water birth should
feel compelled to either undertake the challenge of designing and
implementing a sound RCT or admit that such a randomization is unethical
because the risk is actually greater in water births. As scientific
practitioners, we must remain skeptical of untested regimens and beliefs at
all times no matter what the anecdotal evidence suggests or how compelling
the untested story is.11,12 In this manner, we repeatedly challenge our
medical practices to be certain that the emperor does indeed have clothes
and, most importantly, to better serve our patients.

Unfortunately water births have received little such scrutiny. A current
review of Medline-referenced articles reveals no substantial controlled
research and certainly no well-designed RCTs of water birth. There have been
a few studies, including RCTs, assessing water labor, but most of them are
not well designed and offer contrary findings, providing little insight on
the effects of water immersion on the infant.13,14 Many studies mix water
labor and water birth, confounding evaluation of these distinct practices.

Nikodem14 found only 3 acceptable trials in his Cochrane review, first
completed in 1997 and updated in 1999 (the primary focus of these trials was
immersion in labor, not necessarily birth underwater). All suffer from
significant methodologic flaws, primarily performance bias. Rush et al15
conducted the largest study of some 800 women (the other 2 studies together
add _200 patients), 46% of the women in the immersion group did not use the
tub but were still included in the intention-to-treat arm. Additionally, the
authors included 41 noneligible women in the data analysis. Nikoderm's
review determined that there were no statistically significant differences
between immersion and nonimmersion in regards to pain relief, augmentation
and duration of the first stage of labor, meconium-stained amniotic fluid,
perineal trauma, or neonatal outcomes (Apgar score, umbilical arterial pH,
and neonatal infection).

He concluded that there was insufficient evidence from available RCTs to
evaluate the use of the practice. Many physicians view the practice as
unproved and associated with significant, avoidable risks. In 1993,
Zimmerman et al,16 categorically challenged the claims of efficacy and
safety of water births. Reviewing the literature for proposed benefits, they
measured the safety and efficacy claims of proponents against physiologic
and general considerations.

Their review noted that experience and reason, let alone scientific
evaluation, did not support the claims of water-birth proponents. Other
authors have documented adverse neonatal outcomes including unexplained
deaths, drowning and neardrowning, asphyxiation, water intoxication
hyponatremia causing seizures, water aspiration leading to respiratory
distress syndrome and respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, snapped
umbilical cords, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, pneumonia, and other
infections including Pseudomonas bacteremia.8–10,17,18

Gilbert and Tookey10 provide us with an "outsider's" objective perspective
on water births (they are epidemiologists). They provide us with the only
broad epidemiologic information available, although their study suffers from
the inherent flaws of a survey-based study. They undertook a difficult
surveillance- and-survey study of water births in England and Wales
occurring between April 1994 and April 1996 at 219 maternity units.
Specifically, they evaluated the voluntarily reported outcomes of water
birth and labor in water followed by out-of-water birth, comparing them with
documented outcomes in conventional deliveries (not clearly defined but not
in water). They received reports of 4032 such deliveries (0.6% of all
deliveries) from 213 centers in 1995 (97% response) and 184 centers in 1996
(86% response).

Among these births were 5 perinatal deaths and 34 special care admissions in
England and Wales after water birth that occurred within the first 48 hours
of life. Perinatal mortality associated with water labor and/or birth was
1.2 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-2.9), with 8.4
per 1000 live births (95% CI: 5.8-11.8) requiring admission to a special
care nursery. In reports of low-risk, conventional deliveries in the United
Kingdom during the same period, mortality was 0.8-4.6 per 1000 live births
(95% CI: 0.2-4.2), with morbidity occurring in9.2-64 per 1000 (95% CI:
58-70) live births. No deaths were attributed directly to water birth. Two
infants were stillborn, 1 after a concealed pregnancy with no prenatal care
lead to an unattended home birth (the authors do not indicate why this birth
is included as a water birth). The 3 postpartum deaths were attributed to
pathologic processes. One died within 3 days due to neonatal herpes, another
expired at 30 minutes of life from intracranial hemorrhage after precipitous
delivery, and the other died at 8 hours of life, later determined to be due
to lung hypoplasia.

Thirty-four infants were admitted to special care within 48 hours of birth,
and 3 later died. Thirteen required respiratory support, and 15 survivors
were diagnosed with pneumonia, transient tachypnea or "wet lung," suspected
aspiration, meconium aspiration, water aspiration, and freshwater drowning
(1 who had hyponatremia).

Fifteen had other reasons for admission: 5 had snapped umbilical cords (1
requiring transfusion, 1 developing hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy grade 2,
and 1 with a chromosomal abnormality), 3 had stridor, 1 had shoulder
dystocia, 1 had hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy grade 3 and transposition of
the great arteries, another had a chromosomal abnormality, and 4 had no
clear reason or diagnosis.

Although conventional birth is associated with many of the types of negative
outcomes reported, it is evident that some are unique to water labor/birth.

Although concluding that the perinatal risk associated with water birth was
not substantially higher than that of infants born conventionally, Gilbert
and Tookey10 reported several significant methodologic limitations of their
study. Survey respondents over the 2-year course of the study declined
significantly between the 2 study years (13.6%), with as much as 18% of the
reports being based on estimates (presumably by responders) rather than
documented numbers. The risks were calculated from small numbers with wide
CIs. They were unable to clearly identify mothers who labored in but did not
deliver in water. Underreporting of admissions to special care after
delivery in water were suspected (although mortality numbers are felt to be
accurate), there was inconsistent recording of birth circumstances, and
specific risks and benefits were not being measured.

Gilbert and Tookey illuminated how difficult it is to assess the frequency
of delivery by water birth and associated outcomes worldwide. There is no
reporting requirement in the United States; many are home births, and many
are water labors that are not followed by water birth. In the United States,
there are increasing numbers of hospitals and home service agencies
providing tubs and information on water labor and birth, but there is no
central accrediting or regulating agency. The Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations does not evaluate centers or keep
specific information on the practice of water immersion or water birth (C.
Hill, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, verbal
communication, 2004).

Individual case reports of infant morbidity and mortality with water births
appear increasingly in the medical literature, whereas the pleasant merits
of water births without adverse incidents continue to be published as case
reports and reviews in paramedical journals and Web sites.3,8–10,13,17–19
These latter anecdotal case reports ostensibly validate the safety and
efficacy of water births and are used as a basis for the claims of
proponents, but they provide no objective details of the circumstances of
those births, any long-term follow-up, or review of adverse outcomes across
a population. Improved recording of water labor and water births and
reliable, objective reporting of adverse events and outcomes could provide a
more reliable understanding of safety and efficacy. Such a compulsory
central registry could lead to a better foundation of knowledge from which
studies and protocol consensus could be derived.

In light of this, it is not surprising that how one conducts, or who can
conduct, a water birth has not been validly established. There is currently
no consensus for conducting water labor or water birth (ie, water-quality
assessments, temperature and maintenance, water depth or volume, fetal and
maternal assessments, etc), and much disparity in opinion and practice
exists.6 Because proponents of water immersion have not addressed questions
of safety and efficacy and have no central epidemiologic resource, they have
not developed a foundation or consensus for the practice. Hence, a
regulatory protocol or

agency does not exist (nor, in the context of antimedicalization, can it).
Given the incredible complexity of the childbirth process and the disparity
in case reports in the literature, a failure to develop a regulatory agency
or consensus protocol suggests that critical assessment of this technique
has not been appropriately forthcoming.

Water births currently provide no apparent benefit in childbirth. The
practice is based on misrepresentations of neonatal physiology and
unsupported claims of safety and efficacy. This birthing method fulfils no
need for the infant, is of dubious benefit to the mother, is associated with
significant, avoidable risks of morbidity and mortality, and currently is
unable to pass the risk-benefit test.

The continued push for water births in the absence of sound data to support
claims undermines the credibility of the obstetric profession as it
justifiably seeks to mitigate the necessary medicalization of childbirth.
Water births should not be considered an acceptable standard of care until
rigorous evaluation is pursued. Until that time, water births remain a naked
emperor, whose nakedness must be challenged despite a culture of active
ignoring that threatens to harm our patients and our profession.

Masih banyak lagio

Dari saya sendiri

secara common sense saja .... naturenya manusia .... melahirkan ya tidak di
air

maaf kalau tak berkenan

wati

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

9a.

Re: [ask] : baby 2 bulan... Nafas grok2 n bintik2 kecil dimuka n kak

Posted by: "melessa" melessawchandra@gmail.com   melessawijayachandra

Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:24 am (PDT)



Mau nimbrung jg...

Wkt Bryan msh newborn..lahir dg berat. 1,9 ,saudara kembarnya 2,4kg..Bryan jg tiap minum susu bunyi ngik2 spt kehabisan napas, tp kakaknya tdk..saya jg kuatir..tp oleh dsanya ..itu akan menghilang sesuai dg bertambah usianya..
Solusinya tiap minum susu , posisi gendong agak tegak..bunyinya agak berkrg..Bryan biasa minum ASIP, kl menyusu lgs .dia srg ngamuk..mgkn krn lewat dot dia merasa lbh nyaman. Jd hny kakaknya menyusu lgs..

Semoga bisa membantu..

Melessawchandra
Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry®
10.

Fwd: Infants should sleep on their backs

Posted by: "Billy N." billy@hukum-kesehatan.web.id   yahrapha

Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:41 am (PDT)



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-sleep-infants-idUSTRE79H4Q120111018
Infants should sleep on their backs, Pediatric group says

Putting babies to sleep on their backs on a firm crib mattress in the
same room as the parents is among an list of safe sleep guidelines for
infants released on Tuesday.
The American Academy of Pediatrics first said in 1992 that infants
should be placed in a non-prone position for sleeping to curb sudden
infant deaths.
The latest report recommends infants sleep wholly on their back for
every sleep, noting that side sleeping is unsafe. Some supervised
awake-time spent on the tummy is recommended.
A series of 18 recommendations from the academy are intended to help
guide parents, health care providers and others who care for infants
following an increase in sleep-related deaths over the last few years.
The expanded recommendations focus broadly on creating a safe sleep
environment that can reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome,
suffocation, entrapment and asphyxia, the report said.
The guidelines also recommend soft objects and loose bedding like
quilts, pillows and even bumper pads not be kept in cribs.
Infants should not regularly have routine sleep time in sitting
devices like car seats and strollers and should not sleep in a bed
where they might suffocate, according to the guidelines.
The recommendations, geared to infants up to one year of age,
emphasize the importance of regular prenatal care for pregnant women
and encourage smoke-free environments for pregnant women and children.

11a.

Re: hamil 27 minggu perut sering tegang

Posted by: "Hoesana.Doee" nana.sehat@gmail.com   hoesana_doee

Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:58 am (PDT)



Mbak Mel,
Kebetulan saya juga sedang hamil.
perut kencang dimulai dari 6 bln..
saran dari dsog , jika sudah kencang sebaiknya istirahat..

mudah mudah membantu

--
Hoesana-makphine
"get everychilh happy"
<a href="http://hoesanadoee.multiply.com/r/b"><img border=0

11b.

Re: hamil 27 minggu perut sering tegang

Posted by: "Pamelia Yulianto" hidupsehat.pam@gmail.com   pamelia_yulianto

Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:21 am (PDT)



Mb, coba beli maternity belt. Di olshop atau toko bayi ada. Lumayan menolong krn bersifat menyangga perut jd ga tll kena gaya gravitasi

kl duduk kakinya diganjel dingklik n kl naik turun tangga n jalan sebaiknya pelan2

Met menikmati kehamilan

- p a m e l i a -
"Stop Judging, Start Supporting"

Powered by my children's existance

12.

[news]  Consumer Health Digest #11-34, October 13, 2011=> Study ques

Posted by: "/ghz" ghozan10032005@gmail.com

Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:10 am (PDT)



fyi

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Consumer Health Digest #11-34, October 13, 2011
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:08:33 -0400
From: broadcast-chdigest@ssr.com
To: chdigest@ssr.com

Consumer Health Digest #11-34
October 13, 2011
Current # of subscribers: 11,390

Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by
Stephen Barrett, M.D., with help from William M. London, Ed.D. It
summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement
actions; news reports; Web site evaluations; recommended and
nonrecommended books; and other information relevant to consumer
protection and consumer decision-making.

###

Study questions vitamin E safety.

A major clinical trial has found that dietary supplementation with
vitamin E appears to increase the risk of prostate cancer among
apparently healthy men. [Klein EA and others. Vitamin E and the risk
of prostate cancer: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention
Trial (SELECT). JAMA 306:1549-1556, 2011]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21990298

The study, which spanned more than seven years, followed what
happened to more than 35,000 men who received either 400 IU of
vitamin E, vitamin E plus selenium, selenium, or a placebo. The group
that received vitamin E alone had a 17% higher incidence of prostate
cancer. The researchers warned:

"The observed . . . increase in prostate cancer incidence
demonstrates the potential for seemingly innocuous yet biologically
active substances such as vitamins to cause harm. The lack of benefit
from dietary supplementation with vitamin E or other agents with
respect to preventing common health conditions and cancers or
improving overall survival, and their potential harm, underscore the
need for consumers to be skeptical of health claims for unregulated
over-the-counter products in the absence of strong evidence of
benefit demonstrated in clinical trials."

###

---------------------------------------------
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Consumer Advocate
Chatham Crossing, Suite 107/208
11312 U.S. 15 501 North
Chapel Hill, NC 27517

Telephone: (919) 533-6009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

13.

Kira2 sakit apa ya?

Posted by: "kiky aulia" kylia.an@yahoo.com   kylia.an

Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:49 am (PDT)



Dear Docs and SPs

Suami saya siang td ngeluh pusing n badannya anget. Saya baru advise dia utk banyakin minum aja. Saya tanya ada keluhan apalagi katanya ga ada selain badan anget n pusing itu tadi.

Nah, sore ini suami telp (saya n suami tinggal beda kota) n blg klo kepalanya tambah berat n pusing. Tambahan lg sore ini badannya berasa linu2. Gejala spt susah nelan, hidung meler atopun batuk ga ada.

Please, kira2 saya bs browsing apa ya dg gejala yg dirasakan suami saya?? Worry, kasian sakit sendirian :(
Apa perlu lsg ke dktr ato observasi dl aja?

Thanks before utk jawaban2nya


Kiky
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Yahoo! Group

to share and learn.

Yahoo! Health

Heartburn or Worse

What symptoms

are most serious?

Drive Traffic

Sponsored Search

can help increase

your site traffic.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Milis SEHAT mengucapkan terimakasih kepada:
- Asuransi AIA atas partisipasinya sebagai sponsor PESAT Bali 2011
- PT LG Electronics Indonesia atas partisipasinya sebagai Sponsor Tunggal FAMILY FUN DAY MILIS SEHAT 2011.

Terima kasih & penghargaan sedalam-dalamnya kepada : HBTLaw, PT.Intiland, dan PT. Permata Bank Tbk. yang telah dan konsisten mensponsori program kami, PESAT (Program Edukasi Kesehatan Anak Untuk Orang Tua)."

"Milis SEHAT didukung oleh : CBN Net Internet Access &Website.
=================================================================
Milis Sehat thanks to:
- AIA Insurance as sponsor for PESAT Bali 2011
- PT LG Electronics Indonesia as exclusive partner of FAMILY FUN DAY MILIS SEHAT 2011.

Our biggest gratitude to: HBTLaw, PT. Intiland, and PT. Permata Bank Tbk. who have consistently sponsored our program, PESAT (Program Edukasi Kesehatan Anak Untuk Orang Tua)."
"SEHAT mailing list is supported by CBN Net for Internet Access &Website.

Kunjungi kami di (Visit us at):
Official Web : http://milissehat.web.id/
FB           : http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milissehat/131922690207238
Twitter      : @milissehat <http://twitter.com/milissehat/>
==================================================================
Donasi (donation):
Rekening Yayasan Orang Tua Peduli
Bank Mandiri
Cabang Kemang Raya Jakarta
Account Number: 126.000.4634514
==================================================================
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

No comments: