Donald Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine to ward off COVID-19. Is that wise?


Teresa G. Carvalho, La Trobe University

The White House’s confirmation that US President Donald Trump has been taking hydroxychloroquine every day for the past two weeks, with his doctor’s blessing, has reignited the controversy over the drug. It has long been used against malaria but has not been approved for COVID-19.

Trump said he has “heard a lot of good stories” about hydroxychloroquine, and incorrectly claimed there is no evidence of harmful side-effects from taking it. His previous claims in March that the drug could be a “game changer” in the pandemic prompted many people, including Australian businessman and politician Clive Palmer, to suggest stockpiling and distribution of the drug to the public.

But the dangers of acting on false or incomplete health information were underlined by the death of an Arizona man in March after inappropriate consumption of the related drug chloroquine. It’s important to know the real science behind the touted health benefits.

How do these medicines work?

Hydroxychloroquine is an analogue of chloroquine, meaning both compounds have similar chemical structures and a similar mode of action against malaria. Both medications are administered orally and have common side-effects such as nausea, diarrhoea and muscle weakness. However, hydroxychloroquine is less toxic, probably because it is easier for the body to metabolise.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are listed by the World Health Organisation as an essential medicine. Both drugs have been used to treat malaria for more than 70 years, and hydroxychloroquine has also proved effective against auto-immune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treating malaria, but not for COVID-19.




Read more:
In the rush to innovate for COVID-19 drugs, sound science is still essential


We don’t know exactly how these drugs work to combat the malaria parasite. But we know chloroquine disrupts the parasite’s digestive enzymes by altering the pH inside the parasite cell, presumably effectively starving it to death.

Malaria parasites and coronaviruses are very different organisms. So how can the same drugs work against both? In lab studies, chloroquine hinders replication of the SARS coronavirus, apparently by changing the pH inside particular parts of human cells where the virus replicates.

This offers a glimmer of hope that these pH changes inside cells could hold the key to thwarting such different types of pathogens.

Is it OK to repurpose drugs like this?

Existing drugs can be extremely valuable in an emergency like a pandemic, because we already know the maximum dose and any potential toxic side-effects. This gives us a useful basis on which to consider using them for a new purpose. Chloroquine is also cheap to manufacture, and has already been widely used in humans.

But we shouldn’t be complacent. There are significant gaps in our understanding of the biology of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, because it is a brand new virus. There is a 20% genetic difference between SARS-CoV-2 and the previous SARS coronavirus, meaning we should not assume a drug shown to act against SARS will automatically work for SARS-CoV-2.

Widely used, but with common side effects.
Gary L. Hider/Shutterstock

Even in its primary use against malaria, long-term chloroquine exposure can lead to increased risks such as vision impairment and cardiac arrest. Hydroxychloroquine offers a safer treatment plan with reduced tablet dosages and lessened side-effects. But considering their potentially lethal cardiovascular side-effects, these drugs are especially detrimental to those who are overweight or have pre-existing heart conditions. Despite the urgent need to confront COVID-19, we need to tread carefully when using existing medicines in new ways.

Any medication that has not been thoroughly tested for the disease in question can have seriously toxic side-effects. What’s more, different diseases may require different doses of the same drug. So we would need to ensure any dose that can protect against SARS-CoV-2 would actually be safe to take.

The evidence so far

Although many clinical trials are under way, there is still not enough evidence chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine will be useful against COVID-19. The few trials completed and published so far, despite claiming positive outcomes, have been either small and poorly controlled or lacking in detail.

A recent hydroxychloroquine trial in China showed no significant benefits for COVID-19 patients’ recovery rate. A French hydroxychloroquine trial was similarly discouraging, with eight patients prematurely discontinuing the treatment after heart complications.

The fascination with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has also adversely affected other drug trials. Clinical trials of other possible COVID-19 treatments, including HIV drugs and antidepressants, have seen reduced enrolments. Needless to say, in a pandemic we should not be putting all our eggs in one basket.

Then there is the issue of chloroquine hoarding, which not only encourages dangerous self-medication, but also puts malaria patients at greater risk. With malaria transmission season looming in some countries, the anticipated shortage of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine will severely impact current malaria control efforts.




Read more:
Coronavirus: scientists promoting chloroquine and remdesivir are acting like sports rivals


Overall, despite their tantalising promise as antiviral drugs, there isn’t enough evidence chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are safe and suitable to use against COVID-19. The current preliminary data need to be backed up by multiple properly designed clinical trials that monitor patients for prolonged periods.

During a pandemic there is immense pressure to find drugs that will work. But despite Trump’s desperation for a miracle cure, the risks of undue haste are severe.


This article was coauthored by Liana Theodoridis, an Honours student in Microbiology at La Trobe University.The Conversation

Teresa G. Carvalho, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Could blood thinners be a lifesaving treatment for COVID-19? Here’s what the science says and what it means for you



Shutterstock

Karlheinz Peter, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute; Hannah Stevens, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, and James McFadyen, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute

A spate of recent media headlines have described blood thinning medications – which include aspirin and warfarin – as a “breakthrough treatment” for COVID-19 that could “save lives”.

It’s early days yet but a growing body of research evidence suggests COVID-19 causes abnormalities in blood clotting, which means blood thinning drugs may have a role to play in treatment.

Here’s what the research says on this question – and how it applies to you.

Mounting evidence

When COVID-19 first emerged, it was thought the illness was a typical respiratory disease causing symptoms such as fever, sore throat, dry cough, and potentially lung infection (pneumonia) and a build-up of fluid in the lungs making it difficult to breathe.

However, as we outlined in a previous article in The Conversation, 30-70% of COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, developed blood clots.

These rates of blood clotting appear to be much higher than what is expected when compared with people who are hospitalised for reasons other than COVID-19.

Blood clots in the veins often present in the legs (deep vein thrombosis) and are dislodged into the lungs (called pulmonary embolism); approximately one in four COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care will develop a pulmonary embolism (where an artery in the lungs gets blocked).

Arterial blood clots associated with COVID-19 can lead to strokes, including in younger patients, with potentially devastating outcomes.

In addition, COVID-19 appears to cause tiny blood clots that can block small vessels in the lungs. These “micro” blood clots may be a key reason why patients with COVID-19 often have very low oxygen levels.

Blood clots appear to be associated with a higher risk of dying from COVID-19. Likewise, elevated markers of blood clotting are associated with an increased risk of admission to the intensive care unit and a worse prognosis overall.

Should blood thinners be standard treatment for COVID-19 patients in hospital?

Because the rate of blood clotting is so high, all people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should receive a low dose of blood thinner medication to prevent blood clots. This prophylactic dose of blood thinner is standard across most hospitals in Australia.

However, many blood clots in COVID-19 are occurring despite the use of low-dose blood thinners. As such, it is a question of intense discussion whether people admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 should receive a higher-than-usual dose of blood thinners to prevent blood clots and improve clinical outcomes.

A recent study from the US suggests patients admitted to hospital and prescribed full dose blood thinners had a better chance of survival and lower chance of needing a ventilator.

However, this finding has to be confirmed before the higher dose can be generally recommended. Fortunately, several research studies are underway in Europe, the UK and elsewhere to test and answer this question definitively.

Several other blood thinner treatments are also being evaluated in people with COVID-19. Aspirin is commonly prescribed to people who are at high risk of strokes or heart attacks. There are now studies underway examining if aspirin can reduce risk of blood clotting in people with COVID-19. In the US, some stronger clot-busting medications are also being trialled in people with severe COVID-19.

It is important to note blood thinners are not without risk, as this treatment can increase the risk of bleeding. So without definite evidence to support the benefit of high dose blood thinners in all hospitalised patients with COVID-19, the decision to use higher doses of blood thinning medication outside of a clinical trial must be made on an individual basis.


The Conversation, CC BY-ND

Should I take an aspirin to prevent blood clots?

There is no evidence aspirin or other blood thinners should be taken to prevent blood clots in the general population. Also, there is no evidence blood thinners are required to prevent blood clots for people with mild COVID-19 who are isolating at home. Because blood thinners can cause bleeding, they should not be taken unless prescribed by a doctor.

It is important for people who are taking blood thinners for another reason to continue taking these medications as normal, particularly if they are diagnosed with COVID-19.

In summary, our understanding of COVID-19 and how the coronavirus attacks the body continues to rapidly evolve. Researchers from around the world are publishing data almost daily. However, not all of this research has been peer reviewed.

If you develop symptoms, the most important thing you can do is to get tested for COVID-19 and talk to your doctor about potential treatments, including hospital admission and then about blood thinning medication.

Similar to our colleagues in the UK and the US, we as doctors specialised in the field of blood clotting are indeed optimistic and hope clinical studies currently underway will show rigorous strategies for prevention and treatment of blood clotting will help to reduce severity and improve survival of patients with COVID-19.




Read more:
Coronavirus: how long does it take to get sick? How infectious is it? Will you always have a fever? COVID-19 basics explained


The Conversation


Karlheinz Peter, Lab Head, Atherothrombosis and Vascular Biology and Deputy Director, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute; Interventional Cardiologist, Alfred Hospital; Professor of Medicine and Immunology, Monash University, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute; Hannah Stevens, Haematologist and PhD student, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, and James McFadyen, Research Fellow, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Haematologist, Alfred Hospital, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is remdesivir a miracle drug to cure coronavirus? Don’t get your hopes up yet


Nial Wheate, University of Sydney and Andrew Bartlett, University of Sydney

The race is on to find a drug that is both effective and safe for treating COVID-19, which has spread to 3.1 million infections and caused 220,000 deaths worldwide.

This week, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases released findings of a clinical trial of the experimental antiviral drug remdesivir. This showed COVID-19 patients recovered more quickly and had an improved survival rate when taking the drug, compared with those given a placebo and standard care.

But these are just the preliminary results of one study. Other human trials have not shown similar results. Further trials are under way and will more definitively show whether remdesivir is a suitable and effective treatment for COVID-19.




Read more:
In the fight against coronavirus, antivirals are as important as a vaccine. Here’s where the science is up to


What is remdesivir?

Remdesivir is an experimental antiviral drug being developed by Gilead Sciences. Originally it was being developed as a treatment for Ebola, a viral infection that causes severe internal bleeding. But researchers are now interested in its potential to treat patients with COVID-19.

Remdesivir mimics a natural ingredient called adenosine of DNA and RNA, the latter being a molecule similar to DNA that is used to carry the genetic information of viruses. After the drug is activated in the body, it works by blocking a type of enzyme called a polymerase, which is needed to make DNA and RNA.

When you block the enzyme, the virus can’t make copies of itself, limiting the development of symptoms and spread of the disease.

It should be noted that no drug is perfectly safe, and remdesivir is no different. Studies undertaken so far suggest the drug may damage the liver and cause other short-term side effects such as nausea and vomiting.

These side effects need to be taken into consideration when treating COVID-19 patients who have other underlying conditions.

Clinical trials in US positive but only preliminary

This week the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) released the results of its trial using remdesivir for COVID-19 patients. They studied the effects of the drug on patients who were already infected with COVID-19 to see whether it helped them recover faster and improve their survival rate.

Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were given daily injections of remdesivir. They were found to recover four days faster, an improvement of 31%, when compared with other patients who only received standard care and placebo.




Read more:
Coronavirus treatments: what drugs might work against COVID-19?


The results also indicated that more patients survived the infection with remdesivir treatment, with the death rate dropping from 11.6% to 8%.

The results are significant enough that director of NIAID Anthony Fauci said it was an “ethical responsibility” for the remaining trial patients who were taking the placebo to be switched to the active drug.

But we need to treat the results of this trial with caution; for the moment they are only preliminary.

A data and safety panel has looked at the initial results, but they haven’t been peer-reviewed. During peer review, independent experts from the scientific community scrutinise the study design, methods, data produced, and the conclusions before the study is published in a medical journal.

How does it compare with other studies?

The results of other trials, such as one undertaken in China, have not shown the same promising results.

The Chinese study was published in the Lancet, considered one of the most influential medical journals in the world. This trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study which means that neither the researchers nor the patients knew if they’d been given the active drug or a placebo.

These types of studies can reduce some biases that can influence studies, but also help quantify the effectiveness of the drug.

But the study also had limitations that need to be recognised. The patients were not as seriously ill as those in the NIAID trial, and the study was terminated early because the outbreak in China was easing.

In the end, the study only collected data on 237 patients, compared with 1,063 patients in the NIAID trial. The authors acknowledge further study is needed in more seriously ill patients and with a larger sample size.

Currently there are more than a dozen other clinical trials of remdesivir and COVID-19 being undertaken throughout the world. We need to await the data to know for sure whether the drug is as effective as we need it to be.




Read more:
Head lice drug Ivermectin is being tested as a possible coronavirus treatment, but that’s no reason to buy it


This article is supported by the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas.The Conversation

Nial Wheate, Associate Professor | Program Director, Undergraduate Pharmacy, University of Sydney and Andrew Bartlett, Associate Lecturer Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In the fight against coronavirus, antivirals are as important as a vaccine. Here’s where the science is up to



Shutterstock

Lisa Sedger, University of Technology Sydney

While many scientists are working on developing a coronavirus vaccine, others are busy testing antiviral drugs.

Vaccines are generally only effective when administered prior to infection, but antiviral agents are important because they can treat people who already have COVID-19.

Here’s an overview of antiviral drugs scientists are investigating for coronavirus.




Read more:
How does coronavirus kill?


Targeting the copy cats

How do antiviral drugs work? First, it’s important to understand the genome of animals and plants is composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), but viral genomes can also be comprised of ribonucleic acid (RNA). This is the case for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus – the virus that causes COVID-19.

In order to replicate, an RNA virus needs to make more copies of its RNA genome. This means antiviral drugs which block the copying of RNA genomes can potentially help treat COVID-19 patients. These drugs are known as RNA-polymerase inhibitors.




Read more:
Here’s why the WHO says a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months away


These types of drugs have successfully cured people of chronic hepatitis C – another RNA virus infection.

But not all viral RNA polymerases are the same, so the drugs that work for hepatitis C virus will not necessarily work for human coronaviruses.

Favilavir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor drug scientists are currently trialling against coronavirus.

Stopping the virus in its tracks

Another successful antiviral drug strategy is to use non-functional “analogues”, or inauthentic copies of the basic building blocks of the viral RNA genome. The presence of these analogues in the viral genome blocks the viral polymerase, meaning the virus cannot make another copy of its RNA. Acyclovir, ribavirin and azidothymidine (AZT) are examples of these drugs.

Unfortunately, this coronavirus is a bit tricky, because it “proofreads” the authenticity of its RNA genome. As such, it identifies the analogues as being inauthentic and removes them. This stops certain antiviral drugs like ribavirin from being effective.

Fortunately, the coronavirus’ proofreading powers don’t block a similar drug, remdesivir. So remdesivir potently halts coronavirus replication and represents a promising drug option for COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir is also effective against other RNA viruses including Ebola virus and the coronaviruses SARS and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS).

Scientists are currently assessing remdesivir in clinical trials in the United States and China. Time will tell if remdesivir is effective for COVID-19 patients. But doctors are already considering how the drug is best administered for optimal results and whether it should be used in combination with other drugs or as a single agent.




Read more:
COVID-19 treatment might already exist in old drugs – we’re using pieces of the coronavirus itself to find them


Other proven antiviral drugs

Many RNA viruses produce a single “multi-protein” that’s later broken down into individual proteins via enzymes called “proteases”. Any molecules that inhibit these proteases have potential as antiviral drugs. Viral protease inhibitor drugs have been highly effective in treating the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus.

Lopinavir and ritonavir are a combination protease-inhibitor drug (Kaletra) that can inhibit coronaviruses in human cells. Kaletra has already been used to treat a patient with COVID-19 in South Korea, but a larger trial found its effects were unconvincing. The reasons for these discrepancies are currently unclear and more research is obviously needed.

With any antiviral drug, the sooner it’s administered once a patient is infected, the better the outcome. This is because viruses replicate quickly, producing tens to hundreds of new infectious viruses.

Weathering the cytokine storm

In respiratory infections caused by influenza or SARS-CoV-2 viruses, clinically serious infection involves what’s called a “cytokine storm”. Here, a strong immune response results in the production of high levels of inflammatory mediators: cytokines and chemokines.

These molecules recruit inflammatory cells to the site of the virus infection, for example, the lungs of patients with COVID-19. These cytokines and cells then fight the virus infection, but their presence also partly obstructs the air sacs where oxygen exchange occurs.

Researchers are now considering add-on therapies that partly limit the inflammatory response by blocking the effects of certain cytokines and chemokines. These add-on therapies include antibody-based drugs, such as tocilizumab that blocks the interleukin-6 cytokine receptor or leronlimab that blocks the chemokine receptor CCR5. When cytokine receptors and chemokine receptors are blocked then it matters less that there are high levels of cytokines or chemokines, because their effects are significantly minimised.

The good news is antibody-based drugs have minimal side effects, and have proved effective for many human chronic inflammatory diseases. Expanding these drugs for use in COVID-19 patients is therefore an attractive possibility. Although this would require caution for careful dosing, and these drugs would need to be co-administered together with an antiviral drug.

Antivirals successfully treat other viral conditions, such as hepatitis C and HIV.
Shutterstock

Anti-malarial drugs

Chloroquine, a well-known anti-malarial drug, has also gained attention. One study tested it together with a broad-spectrum antibiotic azithromycin. While some COVID-19 patients in this small study recovered, other patients died (despite chloroquine treatment), and some patients ceased treatment for a variety of reasons – including the severity of their symptoms.

Nevertheless, people are interested in how chloroquine and azithromycin might work for coronavirus. Chloroquine exhibits antiviral activity and is currently used to treat autoimmune diseases because it also has anti-inflammatory properties. Azithromycin is an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections, but it, too, exhibits antiviral activity, including against rhinovirus that causes the common cold. Chloroquine might need to be given early after infection to be most effective against coronavirus.




Read more:
Could chloroquine treat coronavirus? 5 questions answered about a promising, problematic and unproven use for an antimalarial drug


The World Health Organisation has announced a global clinical trial program testing possible COVID-19 treatments, including remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine, and certain antiviral cytokines.

The escalating number of coronavirus patients worldwide means alongside vaccine development, the focus must remain squarely on finding effective antiviral drugs that can treat those already seriously ill from SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Conversation

Lisa Sedger, Senior Lecturer, Head of the Viruses and Cytokine Biology group in the School of Life Science, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How can I treat myself if I’ve got – or think I’ve got – coronavirus?



Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash

David King, The University of Queensland

New cases of the coronavirus are reported every day, and as yet there’s no vaccine. So what treatments are available if you’re one of the unlucky ones who gets infected?

If your symptoms are mild, you should treat them the same way you would a cold or flu.

A spectrum of severity

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is one of hundreds of viruses that cause colds and flu symptoms in humans.

The infection ranges in severity from almost silent (asymptomatic), to a mild cold, all the way to lung and organ failure. The symptoms may be worse than a normal cold or flu because this coronavirus is new (or “novel”) to our species and we haven’t built up herd immunity to it yet.

But current estimates suggest about 80% of cases will have relatively mild to moderate illness.




Read more:
Coronavirus: how long does it take to get sick? How infectious is it? Will you always have a fever? COVID-19 basics explained


If you’re one of these, you might not know for sure whether you have COVID-19, as you may not be eligible for testing. It’s important you self-isolate if you’re unwell regardless.

But from the perspective of treatment, if your illness is reasonably mild, it doesn’t really matter whether you have a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or not.

So how do I treat the symptoms?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) says the most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, tiredness, and dry cough. Some patients may have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, a sore throat or diarrhoea.

The most bothersome symptoms tend to be fever and muscle pains. You can safely treat these with paracetamol.

The WHO initially recommended people with COVID-19 avoid taking ibuprofen to relieve symptoms. But it retracted that advice days later, so it seems reasonable to also consider using anti-inflammatory drugs.

You can treat nasal congestion with decongestants and nasal saline. Effective treatments for a sore throat include honey, salt water gargles, and sore throat sprays or gargles.




Read more:
Health Check: what’s the right way to blow your nose?


Cough is a more difficult symptom to control, but you may be able to improve it with honey, steam inhalations and saline nose sprays. Cough suppressants have only minimal benefit in reducing a dry cough.

It’s also important to support your immune system, particularly with rest and a healthy diet.

Look to the same kind of remedies you would if you were sick with a regular cold or flu.
Shutterstock

There’s some evidence zinc lozenges may shorten the duration of some colds and flus, including COVID-19. But this evidence is conflicting and not of high quality.

Meanwhile, there’s no convincing evidence beyond the placebo effect for a range of other common treatments, such a vitamin C and echinacea. But these are unlikely to cause harm.

Don’t try this at home

It’s important not to take medicines that haven’t been approved for the treatment of colds and flus.

Anecdotal reports and a small case series of patients in China have suggested a role for the antimalarial drug chloroquine in treating COVID-19.

Further clinical trials of this drug are currently underway, but at this stage it’s recommended as treatment only in COVID-19 cases complicated by viral or bacterial pneumonia, and under the guidance of medical professionals.

One HIV antiviral combination drug, lopinavir-ritonavir, seemed promising. But it failed to make a significant difference in 199 patients with COVID-19 in China.

So there are no effective curative treatments as yet, but clinical trials of different antiviral agents are continuing.




Read more:
To get on top of the coronavirus, we also need to test people without symptoms


While lots of information about prevention and treatments for coronavirus is circulating online, a good rule of thumb is if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

If you’re unsure about anything, look to reliable sources like the Australian government or the WHO, or consult a doctor.

What about people with more serious illness?

About five to seven days after the onset of symptoms, some patients develop shortness of breath and trouble breathing, which will require medical attention.

Shortness of breath occurs when pneumonia develops, causing a buildup of thick mucus in the lungs that blocks the transfer of oxygen into the blood vessels.

If your condition deteriorates, call ahead to a doctor or hospital and inform them of your COVID-19 status. If you’re experiencing severe symptoms, such as shortness of breath, call an ambulance.

If your symptoms are more severe, you might need treatment in hospital.
Shutterstock

How long before I’m not infectious anymore?

If you’re hospitalised with COVID-19, you will remain in isolation until you’re no longer experiencing symptoms and a test confirms you’re no longer infectious.

In a group of hospitalised patients in China, the average duration of virus still detected in the respiratory tract was 20 days.

Mild cases, however, have a shorter duration of illness, and the virus clears more quickly from their bodies.

Australian guidelines state that cases with a mild illness not requiring hospitalisation can end their self-isolation if they meet these two criteria:

  • at least ten days have passed since the onset of symptoms
  • all symptoms of acute illness have been resolved for the previous 72 hours.



Read more:
Can I take the dog for a walk? Can I put the kids to bed? What you should and shouldn’t do if you’re in coronavirus self-isolation


The Conversation


David King, Senior Lecturer, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Had constipation? Here are 4 things to help treat it



Medications, being out of your routine and not getting enough exercise can all cause constipation.
Seasontime/Shutterstock

Clare Collins, University of Newcastle

Chronic constipation is incredibly common. Around one in four people worldwide report symptoms, while in Australia and New Zealand, it’s around one in seven.

Lots of things can trigger constipation: being out of your usual routine (think holidays, illness or injury), having a low fibre intake, not drinking enough water and inactivity.

Certain medications can also cause constipation including iron supplements, painkillers, diuretics (to help you get rid of sodium and water), and other drugs to treat heart disease, mental health conditions and allergies.




Read more:
Health Check: what causes constipation?


Constipation is more common in older adults and in women, due to hormonal changes that slow bowel motility – the time it takes for your body to digest food and expel the waste products (stools or bowel motions). Pregnant women are particularly prone to constipation.

How do you know you’re constipated?

Symptoms include:

  1. lumpy or hard stools
  2. feeling that your bowels haven’t emptied completely or your anus is blocked
  3. straining to pass a bowel motion
  4. manipulating your body position to try and pass a bowel motion
  5. having fewer than three bowel motions per week.

If over a three-month period you answer yes to two or more of these symptoms most weeks, then you have “constipation”.

The good news is it can be treated and then prevented.

Women are more likely to become constipated than men because they experience more horomonal changes.
Kongsak/Shutterstock

If your bowels are so packed you can’t pass any bowel motions at all, see your GP. You may need treatment with specific laxatives to clear your bowels before you can start on a prevention plan.

Here are four things that research shows improve bowel function, which refers to the time it takes for food to move through your digestive system and be expelled as a bowel motion (called gut transit time), the frequency and volume of bowel motions, and stool consistency.

1. High-fibre foods

Dietary fibres are complex carbohydrates that aren’t digested or absorbed in the gut.

Different types of dietary fibres improve bowel function through the following processes:

  • the fermentation of fibre in the colon produces water and other molecules. These make stools softer and easier to pass

  • absorption of water into stools stimulates the gut to contract and makes bowel motions softer

  • a higher fibre intake creates bigger stools, which pass more quickly, resulting in more regular bowel motions.




Read more:
Health Check: are you eating the right sorts of fibre?


A good source of fibre is psyllium. It forms a viscous gel, which gets fermented in the colon, leading to softer bowel motions. Psyllium is the main ingredient in Metamucil, which is commonly used to treat constipation.

Psyllium is a type of fibre that helps soften bowel motions.
Shawn Hempel/Shutterstock

A review comparing the effect of psyllium to wheat bran in people with chronic constipation found psyllium was 3.4 times more effective at increasing the amount of stool passed.

This is important because having a bigger bowel motion waiting in the colon to be passed sends signals to your gut that it’s time to expel the stool – and it helps the gut contract to do just that.

The review found both psyllium and coarse wheat bran had a stool-softening effect, but finely ground wheat bran had a stool-hardening effect.

Other foods rich in fermentable carbohydrates include dark rye bread and legumes (chickpeas, lentils, four-bean mix, red kidney beans, baked beans); while wholemeal and wholegrain breads and cereals are high in different types of dietary fibres.




Read more:
Multigrain, wholegrain, wholemeal: what’s the difference and which bread is best?


2. Kiwi fruit

Kiwi fruit fibre absorbs about three times its weight in water. This means it helps make stools softer and boosts volume by increasing the amount of water retained in bowel motions. This stimulates the gut to contract and moves the bowel motions along the gut to the anus.

In a study of 38 healthy older adults, researchers found adding two to three kiwi fruit per day to their diets for three weeks resulted in participants passing bowel motions more often. It also increased the size of their stools and made them softer and easier to pass.

Kiwi fruit can help you go to the loo more regularly.
Nitr/Shutterstock

Kiwi fruit are also rich in the complex carbohydrate inulin a type of fructan. Fructans are a prebiotic fibre, meaning they encourage growth of healthy bacteria in the colon.

But fructans can also aggravate symptoms in some people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). If you have IBS and constipation, check in with your GP before upping your fructan intake.




Read more:
Explainer: what is irritable bowel syndrome and what can I do about it?


If you don’t like kiwi fruit, other vegetables and fruit high in fructans include spring onion, artichoke, shallots, leek, onion (brown, white and Spanish), beetroot, Brussels sprouts, white peaches, watermelon, honeydew melon and nectarines.

3. Prunes

Prunes are dried plums. They contain a large amount of sorbitol, a complex carbohydrate that passes undigested into the colon where bacteria ferment it. This produces gas and water, which triggers an increase in bowel movements.

Eating prunes is even more effective than psyllium in improving stool frequency and consistency.

One study of adults with constipation compared eating 100 grams (about ten) prunes a day for three weeks to those who ate psyllium. The prune group passed an average of 3.5 separate bowel motions per week compared to 2.8 in the psyllium group.

The prune group’s stools were also softer. They rated, on average, 3.2 on the Bristol stool chart compared to 2.8 for the psyllium group, meaning their bowel motions were more toward smooth to cracked sausage-shaped motions rather than lumpy ones.


The Conversation, CC BY-ND

If you don’t like prunes, other foods that contain sorbitol include apples, pears, cherries, apricots, plums and “sugar-free” chewing gum and “sugar-free” lollies.

4. Water

Not drinking enough water is the strongest predictor of constipation. When your body is a bit dehydrated, there’s less water for the fibre in your colon to absorb, meaning your bowel motions also become dehydrated and harder to pass.

Aim for around 1.5 to two litres of fluid per day, which can include liquids such as tea, coffee, soup, juice, and even jelly and the liquid from stewed fruit.




Read more:
Health Check: what your pee and poo colour says about your health


Putting it all together

Start by increasing the amount of water or other liquids you drink. You should be drinking enough that your urine is the colour of straw.

Aim for two litres of water a day.
Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

Next, add in psyllium. Start with a tablespoon once a day with breakfast cereal.

Psyllium forms a gel as soon as it comes into contact with liquids so to make psyllium more palatable, mix it with a small amount of stewed fruit or yoghurt and eat it straight away. If needed, increase psyllium to twice a day.

At least once a day, have some prunes (either dried or canned) or kiwi fruit and a variety of other foods high in fibre, fructans, sorbitol and fermentable carbohydrate.

If your bowel habits don’t improve, see your GP.The Conversation

Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How do you know if your child has hay fever and how should you treat it?



It comes down to the persistence of symptoms.
Littlekidmoment/Shutterstock

Paxton Loke, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

Spring has sprung and if you’re one of the one in five Australians who get hay fever, you’ve probably noticed some of those pesky symptoms: sneezing; an itchy, runny or stuffy nose; and red, itchy, watery eyes.

Unfortunately children aren’t immune. One in ten will get hay fever – or allergic rhinitis, as it’s known in the clinic – and the rate appears to be rising.

Pollens generally cause seasonal symptoms (in spring or summer), while house dust mites are mainly responsible for year-round symptoms.

Children who are allergic to both seasonal and perennial allergens may experience a marked increase in their symptoms during spring.

Hay fever can lead to fatigue, irritability and poor concentration, and can affect children’s learning and social behaviour. But the good news is it’s usually easily treated.




Read more:
Future hay fever seasons will be worse thanks to climate change


Why do kids get hay fever?

Hay fever can begin as early as 18 months of age, when children are exposed to pollens or house dust mites.

Tiny particles get trapped in the hairs and mucous that line their nasal cavity, or can enter via the conjunctiva – the tissue that covers their eye.

The body treats these invaders as dangerous and mounts an attack, using antibodies called immunoglobulin E, or IgE.

When the allergens bind to IgE antibodies, which are present on immune cells (such as mast cells), the cells quickly release chemical mediators, including histamines and leukotrienes. This causes sneezing, itchy and/or runny nose, and itchy, watery eyes.

The body then recruits other immune cells, such as T cells, causing more inflammation and worsening symptoms.

How do you know if it’s hay fever?

While hay fever can be a life-long health issue, symptoms can fluctuate over time.

As well as sneezing, an itchy, runny nose, and itchy watery eyes, you might notice your child has a dry cough, is snorting or sniffing, or continually clears their throat.

In some instances, they might make a clicking sound with their tongue when they use it to scratch the roof of their mouth.

Hay fever symptoms in children are the same as adults.
Creatista/Shutterstock

While these symptoms may initially look like the common cold, the persistence of symptoms after weeks usually points towards hay fever.

Children with hay fever usually don’t have fevers (which are more common with infections) but they may be more prone to recurrent colds.




Read more:
Health Check: how to tell the difference between hay fever and the common cold


If you’re unsure, take your child to your local doctor for a diagnosis. If necessary, they can use skin prick or blood tests to detect the presence of relevant IgE antibodies to the suspected allergens.

Your doctor may then discuss the three main treatment options: avoiding the allergen, oral and topical medications, and allergen immunotherapy.

Avoiding the allergen

Once you suspect or know the allergen, you can help minimise your child’s contact with the cause of their hay fever.

For children who have seasonal allergic rhinitis, allergen minimisation strategies could include:

  • staying indoors on windy days with high pollen counts
  • avoiding activities with allergen exposure (such as grass mowing)
  • having a shower promptly after outdoor activities
  • using re-circulated air in the car.
Try to keep kids with hay fever indoors on days with a high pollen count.
Eva Foreman/Shutterstock

For cases of perennial allergic rhinitis, where house dust mite is the dominant cause, avoidance strategies could include:

  • washing household bedding (sheets and pillow cases) in hot water (above 60°C)
  • removing soft toys
  • replacing woollen underlays with dust mite covers
  • vacuuming carpets with vacuum cleaners fitted with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters.

Medications

Medical therapy is often required in addition to avoiding the allergen.

First line treatments are non-sedating oral antihistamines such as cetirizine, loratadine, fexofenadine and desloratadine. These are available as a syrup or tablets, and can be used for children aged 12 months and over.

They’re available over the counter at pharmacies, or your doctor can advise you on which might work best for your child.




Read more:
Health Check: what are the options for treating hay fever?


Nasal steroid sprays (also called intranasal corticosteroids) are also very effective in alleviating symptoms when used correctly.

For children who suffer from seasonal allergic rhinitis, nasal steroid sprays should be started prior to the start of the pollen season, and maintained throughout the season.

Nasal steroid sprays can be used for children aged two years and above, and need to be started under the direction of your doctor.

Side effects can include nose bleeds or nasal dryness. While long-term use is generally safe, it’s best to have ongoing reviews by your doctor.

Other treatment options include:

  • intranasal decongestants – sprays to dry the nose – which relieve congestion in the nose by shrinking swollen blood vessels in the nose. These can be used for up to three days
  • antihistamine nasal sprays, which may act more quickly than oral antihistamines but only in the nasal passages
  • nasal irrigation with saline (salty water) to clear the nasal passages of the allergens.

Desensitisation

Allergen immunotherapy involves monthly injections, or daily drops or tablets.
Microgen/Shutterstock

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as desensitisation, is an option for children who aren’t getting enough relief from medications and avoiding the allergen.

It involves a regular administration of the allergen, either via monthly injections (called the subcutaneous route) or daily drops/tablets under the tongue (known as the sublingual route).

Allergen immunotherapy is available for children aged five years and above via a paediatric allergy specialist, and successfully reduces symptoms in 40-50% of patients.

Treatment is usually given for a period of three to five years, with costs ranging from A$50-A$200 monthly, depending on the number of allergens and products used.




Read more:
Health Check: what’s the right way to blow your nose?


The Conversation


Paxton Loke, Paediatric Allergist and Immunologist, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is sepsis and how can it be treated?



At least 5,000 Australians die each year as a result of sepsis, more commonly known as blood poisoning.
From shutterstock.com

Hamsa Puthalakath, La Trobe University

Sepsis, colloquially known as blood poisoning, occurs as a result of an infection, usually from bacteria. Bacteria can enter the blood stream via an open wound, from another part of the body after a surgical procedure, or even from a urinary tract infection.

In Australia, more than 15,700 new cases of sepsis are reported each year. Of these, more than 5,000 people will die. Some who survive will need to have limbs amputated, and be left with lifelong disability.

Each intensive care unit admission to treat sepsis costs close to A$40,000.




Read more:
1 in 10 patients are infected in hospital, and it’s not always with what you think


But according to a recent Australian survey, only 40% of people have heard of sepsis. Even fewer know what the condition is.

More and more people are aware of sepsis globally, but there’s still a long way to go. If more people know about it (health professionals included), we’re more likely to recognise the condition early and intervene early, which will lead to improved survival rates.

Meanwhile, with the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the ageing population, the need to find a cure is becoming even more pressing. While a variety of treatments exist, rates of illness and death from sepsis haven’t dropped as they have for infectious diseases over recent decades.

Sepsis has two phases

The first phase occurs when an infection enters the bloodstream. This is called septicaemia. Our body’s immune system over-reacts – a process known as hyper inflammation, or septic shock – which leads to the failure of multiple organs. This phase normally lasts for seven to ten days, or longer, depending on the severity of infection.

If the condition is not caught and successfully treated during this first stage, an immune paralysis phase follows. During this phase, the body is left with no functional immune system to fight off the infection. This second phase accounts for the vast majority of sepsis-related deaths.

Sepsis can affect anyone, but is most dangerous in older adults, pregnant women, children younger than one year, and in those with a weakened immune system such as premature babies and people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

Patients in intensive care units are especially vulnerable to developing infections, which can then lead to sepsis.




Read more:
Why are only some viruses transmissible by blood and how are they actually spread?


Symptoms and treatments

The pathogens causing sepsis can vary, with bacteria accounting for almost 80% of the cases. Pathogenic fungi and viruses contribute to the rest. For this reason, the symptoms aren’t always identical; and they often overlap with other common infections.

A person will be diagnosed with sepsis if they have a confirmed infection together with low systolic blood pressure (less than 100 mmHg), high fever (in some instances hypothermia), delirium and an increased breathing rate.

Treatment often includes antibiotics as well as dialysis. This is because the kidneys are one of the organs often affected when someone gets sepsis.

Other treatment methods such as blood purification by removing endotoxins (bacterial cell wall products that trigger the immune response) have been trialled with little or no success. This is most likely because these methods fail to remove infectious agents hidden in the body’s tissue.

Alternative treatments such as vitamin D have been reported but have not been proven to offer any clinical benefits.

Sepsis can be particularly dangerous in babies.
From shutterstock.com

Many doctors choose to treat with corticosteroids, a type of steroid. Although treatment with steroids reduces the time patients spend in intensive care units, it’s shown no reduction in mortality rates. Importantly, while corticosteroids reduce inflammation, they cause a steep reduction in the number of immune cells, which are needed to fight infection.

In spite of intensive care treatments involving antibiotics, neither the prevalence of sepsis nor death rates from the condition have changed in Australia over the last three decades. They both have actually risen slightly due to the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria and the ageing population.




Read more:
What are septic shock and sepsis? The facts behind these deadly conditions


Where to from here?

Australian experts have recently called for a national action plan to reduce preventable death and disability from sepsis. This would be a positive step to bring more attention to the condition. But reducing the harm sepsis causes also relies on advances in treatment.

Experimental drug therapies for sepsis are at a crossroads, with more than 100 drug trials around the world failing to show any benefit over the last 30 years.

The common thread among all these trials was these treatments targeted the initial inflammatory phase of sepsis. But this phase accounts for less than 15% of all sepsis-related deaths.

And it’s the inflammation that alerts our immune system to an infection. If you completely block this response (for example, by using steroids), the body will not recognise there is an infection.




Read more:
Explainer: how is septicaemia treated?


Researchers have now switched their efforts to identifying the molecular mechanisms that lead to the immune-paralysis phase of sepsis. Understanding this better will hopefully lead to the development of new immunotherapies to target the second phase of the condition.

The time is ripe for measuring the success of sepsis treatment by the number of lives saved rather than the cost saved by reducing the time patients spend in intensive care units.The Conversation

Hamsa Puthalakath, Associate Professor, Biochemistry, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Despite China’s denials, its treatment of the Uyghurs should be called what it is: cultural genocide



Uyghurs in Australia are pressing Canberra to take a firmer stance with China on its treatment of the Muslim minority. Thus far, Australia’s response has been relatively muted.
Tracey Nearmy/AAP

James Leibold, La Trobe University

As China grows more powerful and influential, our New Superpower series looks at what this means for the world – how China maintains its power, how it wields its power and how its power might be threatened. Read the rest of the series here.


In China’s far western region of Xinjiang, Chinese Communist Party officials are persecuting one of the worst human rights abuses of our time, what I labelled an act of cultural genocide in last week’s ABC Four Corners report.

Pressure is mounting on the Australian government to go beyond statements of concern and challenge China over its treatment of the Uyghur minority, particularly those Australian citizens and permanent residents being held in the vast network of “re-education camps” in Xinjiang.

Two Australian Uyghur men are meeting federal politicians in Canberra today to push for the government’s assistance in helping family members trapped in China.

Australia was one of 22 countries to sign a recent letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing concern about the “arbitrary detention” of Uyghurs, but otherwise, its response has been muted.

In recent days, the Chinese government has defended its actions with a dubious propaganda report claiming that Uyghurs were historically forced to become Muslims and have been an integral part of China for thousands of years.

China repeatedly makes false and anachronistic claims like this about the ancient unity of the “Chinese people,” which includes ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs. Its aim is to project modern notions of sovereignty, nationhood and fixed borders back through history.

In reality, the 11 million or so Uyghurs are an indigenous Turkic-speaking people who have inhabited what they call “East Turkestan” for over a millennium. Along with the Tibetans, the Uyghurs have born the brunt of China’s settler colonial project, which seeks to assert its control over remote regions that are closer to Moscow and Tehran than Beijing.

Since March 2017, the Chinese government has interned over a million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in massive, prison-like camps (including possibly 17 Australian residents), where they are subjected to coercive ideological remoulding.

Detainees are forced to denounce their religion, forbidden to speak their language, and taught how to adopt the norms of China’s Han ethnic majority, while praising President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party for salvation.

In their own words, party officials are “washing brains” and “cleansing hearts” in order to “cure” those bewitched by extremist thoughts. In Xinjiang today, non-Han thoughts and behaviour are pathologised as deviant and thus in need of urgent transformation.

What is genocide?

A litany of words and phrases have been used to describe this process. The Chinese government calls the camps free “vocational education and training centres” where Uyghurs willingly learn Chinese language and employment skills in order to assist with their “rehabilitation and reintegration”.

Scholars, journalists and rights defenders have spoken about cultural and religious “persecution” in Xinjiang, arguing the party-state’s policies amount to mass ethnic cleansing, cultural re-engineering, forced assimilation, brainwashing, or even ethnocide.

In August 2018, Gay McDougall, the vice chair of UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, referred to Xinjiang as a “no-rights zone”.

Yet, I believe the scale, sophistication and intent of China’s policies in Xinjiang merits a stronger description.




Read more:
The world has a hard time trusting China. But does it really care?


The term genocide was coined by lawyer Rafael Lemkin in 1944 in reaction to Nazi Germany’s coordinated strategy to annihilate the Jews, gypsies and other non-Aryan peoples. Four years later, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, with Australia one of the first counties to ratify it. The People’s Republic of China ratified it in 1983.

The convention defines genocide as

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

It also obligates signatories to punish those who engage in genocidal acts through a “competent” domestic or international penal tribunal.

Whether genocide includes only physical acts or can extend to attacks on cultural heritage has elicited intense debate, but for Lemkin, the term includes

drastic methods aimed at the rapid and complete disappearance of the culture, moral and religious life of a group of human beings.

Genocide also requires specific intent. In the words of political scientists Kenneth J. Campbell, genocide is a

premeditated, calculated, systematic, malicious crime authorised by the state’s political leaders.

This is exactly what Communist Party officials did when they authorised and then legalised the mass internment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in “concentrated transformation-through-education centres,” ripping more than 10% of the population away from their communities so they could be deliberately re-programmed.

Various methods for erasing culture

Yet, facts arguably matter more than words when it comes to China’s policies in Xinjiang.

We now have ample evidence (including internal party documents) of the deliberate efforts to destroy Uyghur culture and identity. Everyday actions like avoiding pork, speaking Uyghur, wearing a headscarf or praying quietly are now labelled “manifestations of religious extremism,” or what party officials call “malignant tumors” requiring urgent excising in a radical form of cultural surgery.

In the city of Kashgar, for example, a party document highlights the need to sever the lineages, roots and cultural connections of Uyghurs in order to eliminate the fountainhead of potential extremism.

German researcher Adrian Zenz has uncovered evidence of the party’s efforts to separate Uyghur children from their parents in state institutions, where they can be assimilated and indoctrinated by officials. In these institutions, cultural, religious, and linguistic knowledge is intentionally ruptured.




Read more:
Explainer: who are the Uyghurs and why is the Chinese government detaining them?


In some parts of Xinjiang, mosques and shrines are being bulldozed, while others are transformed into empty sites guarded by facial recognition cameras and imams on the party payroll.

In the name of strengthening “bilingual education”, Chinese is now the language of instruction across Xinjiang, from preschool to university. The use of Uyghur language, script, signs and pictures prohibited. Speaking Uyghur is now considered unpatriotic and can get one sent off for re-education.

Perhaps most disturbing, inter-ethnic marriages are being actively promoted to slowly breed out Uyghurness, with cash and other material inducements offered to Han men who take a Uyghur bride.

One can find numerous videos and messages promoting Han-Uyghur inter-marriage on Chinese social media, asserting Xinjiang is now safe and home to many beautiful and eligible Uyghur women who would appreciate a doting Han husband.

Finally, the Chinese government has intensified its family planning regime in Xinjiang to slow the growth of the Uyghur population and eliminate what party officials call “low quality births”.

Beginning in 2017, the region adopted a uniform two children policy that nullified preferential rules allowing rural Uyghur women to have additional births. In the past, Uyghur women were given 3,000 RMB (roughtly A$620) to forgo a third birth and agree to some sort of “long-term contraceptive measure.”

The Communist Party’s calculated war on Uyghur identity is quite literally tearing families and communities apart, while the rich tradition of diversity and tolerance in China is left in tatters.

The resilient nature of culture and memory means that attempts at genocide, thankfully, are rarely successful. Yet the pain they inflict is real.The Conversation

James Leibold, Associate Professor of Politics and Asian Studies, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Yes, the US border policy is harsh – but Australia’s treatment of refugee children has also been deplorable


File 20180625 152164 l7lecu.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Villawood Detention Centre, NSW. There are currently 200 asylum seeker children in detention, in Australia and offshore.
Australian Human Rights Commission

Deborah Zion, Victoria University

US President Donald Trump’s policy of separating children from their families at the Mexican border has sparked outrage in recent months, both in the US and abroad. It became so heated that he eventually ended the separation of families, though their fate remains unclear.

However, Trump is not the only leader to incarcerate children and use their suffering as a form of deterrence. The detention of asylum-seeker children has a long and brutal history in Australia. Trump’s policy invites us to reflect on our own policies regarding the detention of asylum seekers and the situation of children and families fleeing persecution.

Currently, over 200 children are in asylum-seeker detention, including on Nauru, in mainland detention centres and in community-based detention. Many have endured prison-like conditions, with no clear date for their release for months, if not years.

While most children remain with one of their parents, my research has found that separation of families is common. This includes the removal of young men on their 18th birthdays from their families with no warning or follow-up as to their whereabouts.

The mandatory incarceration of asylum-seeker children is an uncommon practice globally. It contravenes important human rights instruments to which Australia is a signatory, most notably the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This states:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily … (This) shall be used only as measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

The degree of despair felt by children and their families is well-documented and goes back many years.

In 2004, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) published A Last Resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention. This document outlined the privations of the lives of those held in detention centres in Australia, including the famous case of Shayan Badraie. He was detained for nearly two years, witnessing attempted suicide, self-harming and violence that resulted in several hospital admissions before the family was released.

The report also documents physical assault by guards, mental illness and lack of appropriate food, shelter and education.




Read more:
Accusations of deliberate, cruel abuse of refugee children must prompt a more humane approach


A Last Resort not only documents terrible human rights abuses, but the ongoing effects on those who experienced them. But, far from ending the incarceration of children and their parents, the policy of detention as deterrence has continued. In this regard, Australia is unusual, being the only developed country that imposes mandatory detention on people arriving by boat.

In 2014, the HREOC conducted another investigation, The Forgotten Children. This report documents in detail ongoing breaches of human rights, unsafe living conditions, medical neglect and physical and sexual assault.

Dehumanisation occurs on every level. One 16-year-old boy stated:

People were called by boat ID. People had no value. No guards called me by name. They knew our name, but only called by boat ID.

Children are also constantly exposed to the trauma of other detainees. One father said:

The word of “suicide” is not an unknown word to our children anymore. They are growing up with these bitter words. Last week a lot of women took action to suicide in Construction Camp. All the kids were scared and crying. How do we remove these bad scenes from our kids’ memories?

The report documents other cases of despair. A 13 year-old-boy detained on Nauru expressed to the treating doctor “a complete loss of hope; despair”. The doctor described how “[h]e had no appetite and no will to eat. He lost over 10 kilograms, which would be about a quarter of his body weight.”




Read more:
Sending children back to Nauru risks creating a generation of damaged people


The Australian government has tried to hide the conditions experienced by those held in places like Nauru and Manus Island. In particular, the Border Force Act (2015-17) imposed criminal sanctions on workers who speak publicly about what they see.

However, there is overwhelming and easily accessible evidence that Australia’s policies cause both immediate and ongoing trauma to children, and indeed all those incarcerated in detention. We must recall that Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention and that seeking asylum is enshrined in this instrument.

So while we can express moral outrage about things that occur far from home, our own policies ensure human rights breaches that cause unnecessary suffering and trauma for long periods of time.

There is now substantial evidence of the poor treatment of asylum-seeker children. This has come from a plethora of reports from human rights organisations, healthcare providers and detainees like Behrouz Boochani, who document and publish the conditions of incarceration.

The ConversationThey remind us of what the Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said: “Do not be a victim; do not be a perpetrator; and above all, do not be a bystander.”

Deborah Zion, Associate Professor and Chair, Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee, Victoria University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.