Dyslexia is a chronic problem that is related to reading abilities in people. It affects a large number of people, especially people with various disabilities. Up to 15% of the population in developed countries suffer from this condition. People with dyslexia often have problems not only with reading, but also with writing, spelling, mathematics, and sometimes music. Continue reading “Dyslexia”
The active ingredient of Levitra is vardenafil. Possible dosages that you can find in drugstores are 2.5mg, 5mg, 10mg or 20mg of vardenafil. Your own dosage is prescribed by your health provider depending on your case and current health situation but cannot exceed 20 mg per day.
The recommended starting dose of Levitra is 10 mg. Nevertheless, men who suffer from some liver disease or other health problems are prescribed the lower quantity of the drug after a medical consultation.
2.5 mg and 5mg tablets are usually prescribed to men who cannot take larger dosage because of medical contraindications.
10 mg tablets is a standard dosage of Levitra.
20 mg tablets are used for men who cannot experience sufficient result with lower dosage. It is the maximum dosage of Levitra.
The amount of Levitra you may need depends on the general state of your health as well as on special characteristics of your organism. They determine efficiency of Levitra in your particular case. Levitra doesn’t have the same influence on all the patients suffering from erectile dysfunction . Some of them get enough with the dosage of 10mg, while others may need the 20mg of Levitra in order to assure qualitative erection.
Levitra is usually taken only in case of need, about an hour before sexual activity. Erection is achieved only in the presence of sexual excitation. Only taking a pill will not provoke your erection.
It is generally recommended to start your treatment with 10 mg of Levitra. Eventual increasing or decreasing of the dosage should be discussed and approved by your general practitioner according to the obtained result and your needs and wants.
The maximum dosage of Levitra is 20mg. You must not take more than this amount of the drug as the risk of side effects is likely to increase drastically. It may be serious side effects such as priapism (a prolonged and / or painful erection which can cause great harm to your penis). Lighter side effects are also possible: feeling of warmth and redness of the face, neck, arms, sneezing, stuffy nose etc.
You also must not take more than 1 tablet of Levitra per day in order to avoid overdosage.
Follow strictly your doctor’s prescription while taking Levitra. Larger or smaller amounts of the drug as well as prolonged time of treatment are likely to produce unwanted side effects or decrease the efficiency of Levitra.
Just several decades ago, there was only Viagra available for treating ED, but today, a range of new ED medications are available for men. They may differ in effectiveness, safety, and other factors. Although Viagra is considered the most effective ED drug, it is not the safest one due to its potential to cause side effects.
There are ED medications with different brand names that usually come with one of the following active ingredients: sildenafil, tadalafil, avanafil, and vardenafil. It is important to understand that if something works for one man, it may be ineffective or harmful to another.
The choice of the drug should be based on many factors, such as any other medications that you take, your health condition, your body reaction to a particular ED drug, etc. That is why consulting a healthcare provider is important when it comes to choosing an ED medication. However, no one can say for sure how this or that ED medicine will work for you until you actually start using it. That is why you should begin with the small dosage to check both the effectiveness and safety of a particular ED drug.
In 2011, the state of New York created a special fund to benefit babies that suffer from birth-related neurological damage. The fund has previously only been made available to hospital born babies as it is supported by fees on hospital-based obstetrical services.
However, the State Supreme Court has recently determined that the intent of state lawmakers did not place limitations on the setting of birth – therefore opening the use of the indemnity fund for homebirth deliveries as well.
The decision comes following a medical malpractice action against a homebirth provider that was settled for $3 million, $1.8 million of which was intended to come from the state medical indemnity fund – a claim denied by the fund’s third party administrator.
The state of New York defines a neurologically related impairment at birth as an injury to the spinal cord of a live infant caused by deprivation of oxygen or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery or resuscitation.
Just like the North Carolina General Assembly, many other state legislatures across the country are considering legislation that would remove the requirement of physician supervision of nurses. In Michigan, SB 320 would propose to allow Certified Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice without physician oversight. This proposal was concerning enough to one Michigan mother – a mother who also happens to be a nurse – that she was prompted to write an opinion piece to her local paper.
Read the account of her daughter’s near death experience while in the dental chair and how the leadership and expertise of a physician anesthesiologist prevented the worst case scenario, HERE.
It is our hope that North Carolina lawmakers will heed the warning of this story and protect North Carolina patients by maintaining physician supervision of all advanced practice nurses – including CRNAs.
PUBLIC HEARING: September 16, 2015, 10:00 a.m.
174 North Church Street, Concord, NC 28025
The North Carolina Board of Chiropractic Examiners has proposed new rules which would increase the required education hours for acupuncture services to 300 (from 200), would permit a process of random office inspections and would also prohibit Board members from serving in leadership positions of the Chiropractic Association during their term.
This filing has a proposed effective date of January 1, 2016.
Full text of proposed rules changes can be found here.
One North Carolina mother recently contacted the North Carolina General Assembly to plead for more physician supervision in nursing practice. Following the unnecessary and tragic death of her son Brody during a planned home birth, Ms. Davidson writes the following:
I am writing to tell you about my son, Brody.
In 2011, Brody died during an attempted home birth. My uterus ruptured and Brody suffocated.
It’s important that you know about Brody so that you can understand why doctors must play a vital role in making child birth safer for mothers and their children.
My decision to birth at home in North Carolina, under the care of a certified nurse midwife, led to the death of my child. After Brody’s death, my midwife told me she should have referred me to an obstetrician for a second opinion about giving birth at home.
I know now that because I had a previous c-section I had a 1/200 risk of rupture and needed close monitoring and immediate access to a surgeon if necessary. My midwife erroneously decided that attempting a homebirth with a scarred uterus was not a variation of normal and did not require careful monitoring or speedy access to an operating room.
I had a perfect pregnancy. But with one contraction, my perfect pregnancy turned into a high-risk medical crisis with a catastrophic outcome. A midwife could do nothing to save my baby.
Losing a child is something no one should endure. That’s why I oppose any legislation that eliminates the requirement that doctors supervise certified nurse midwives or that would license poorly trained, so-called “professional” midwives trained only by their peers.
Removing these protections will make labor and delivery more dangerous and lead to more deaths like Brody’s.
My midwife needed more supervision, not less. With more supervision, perhaps vital resuscitation equipment would not have been missing. Perhaps I would have had a second ultrasound that would have shown how big my baby had grown, or how my scar was breaking down. More supervision, not less, might have saved my baby’s life.
Those who support home birth are happy to share their stories and make it sound like homebirth is safe. But there are many women who, like me, chose home birth and have suffered tragedy as a consequence. Our stories too frequently remain untold because of the pain of our loss.
Please give us—and our lost infants—a voice, and listen to our concerns.
One of these moles is harmless, one of them is a life-threatening melanoma.
Dermatologists train for more than a decade to know the difference.
Melanoma is curable if it is caught early—so a correct diagnosis is literally the difference between life and death.
SB695 and HB807 would allow nurses to diagnose skin cancer without back up from a supervising dermatologist.
For a patient with melanoma, that could be the mistake of a lifetime.
PROTECT PATIENT SAFETY— OPPOSE SB 695 AND HB807.
*In the above example, the larger mole is benign. The smaller one is cancerous.
View a pdf of this handout, courtesy of the NC Dermatology Association here.
The NC Coalition to Protect Patients supports team-based healthcare. To protect patients, the healthcare team must be led by those with the highest level of training – physicians.
SB 695/HB 807 would end physician supervision of many types of nurses and fragment the healthcare team. Supporters of these bills say that, once unsupervised, nurses will relocate from the urban areas to rural communities and expand access to health care. This is a false and dangerous promise.
The American Academy of Nurse Practitioners reports that only 18% of Nurse Practitioners practice in rural areas.
North Carolina’s supervision requirement protects patient safety – it does not prevent nurses from practicing in rural or underserved areas.
Current law requires that supervising physicians and nurse practitioners work as a team and be continuously available to one another for consultation via direct communication or telecommunication and that a written plan is developed for performing various medical tasks, prescribing medications and handling emergency situations.
Although supervised, in North Carolina there are no limits on nurse practitioners in regard to geography or practice location. In states that have authorized the independent practice of nurses, neither access to care nor the cost of care has substantially improved.
There is no evidence that eliminating the safeguard of physician supervision will improve access to medical care in rural North Carolina.
Physicians are the number one provider of primary care services in North Carolina’s rural counties. Even in NC counties containing federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas, Primary Care Physicians outnumber nurse practitioners by more than 2,600.
In fact, eliminating physician supervision of nurses is more likely to harm patients in all areas of our state. Current administrative rules require supervising physicians and nurse practitioners to continually work together to evaluate the quality of the care provided to their shared patients and to create plans to improve clinical outcomes.
SB 695/HB 807 eliminates the Quality Improvement Process currently in place between doctors and nurse practitioners.
This puts patients at risk for unnecessary, adverse outcomes – no matter where they live.
For these reasons, the Coalition opposes SB 695 and HB 807.
Healthcare is a team sport. Every player has the important role of providing access and managing costs. When it comes to safety, leadership of the healthcare team must remain with those with the highest level of education and training. Physician supervision is key to protecting North Carolina patients. For this reason, the Coalition opposes SB 695/HB 807.