Latest news with #InternationalClassificationofDiseases
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17-05-2025
- Health
- First Post
History Today: How homosexuality was removed from list of mental illnesses
On May 17, 1990, the World Health Organization (Who) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, the International Classification of Diseases. It conferred legitimacy and validation upon LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, many of whom had been subjected to involuntary medical treatments. On this day in 1954, the US Supreme Court banned racial segregation of students in schools read more The World Health Organisation scripted history on May 17, 1990, when it removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. This decision marked a turning point in global health policy, human rights, and the LGBTQ+ movement. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. On this day in 1954, US Supreme Court issued one of its most transformative rulings in American history with the declaration of racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here is all that took place on this day across the world. WHO removes homosexuality from mental illness May 17, 1990 is a day written in golden letter as the World Health Organization (WHO) made a landmark decision, removing homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Until then, homosexuality was pathologised by many medical institutions around the world, reinforcing social stigma and justifying discriminatory practices. The decision by Who followed decades of activism, research and growing understanding within the medical and psychological communities. It aligned with earlier changes by organisations like the American Psychiatric Association, which had already removed homosexuality from its own diagnostic manual in 1973. participants take part in the annual Gay Pride Parade. File image/AP This decision carried extensive and significant implications. It conferred legitimacy and validation upon LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, many of whom had been subjected to persecution, involuntary medical treatments and social ostracisation under the guise of mental health interventions. The reclassification also sparked policy reforms, influencing nations to commence the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships and to promote principles of equality within their respective healthcare systems. In commemoration of this significant milestone, May 17 is observed internationally as the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT). This observance functions as a global reminder of the advancements made and the persistent struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and acceptance across the world. School segregation outlawed by the US Supreme Court On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement in the Oliver Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, unanimously declaring racial segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. This one of its most transformative rulings in American history. Brown, a consolidation of five distinct legal challenges to school segregation, reversed the 'separate but equal' doctrine articulated in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson. The legal challenge was initiated by a collective of African American parents, with Oliver Brown as the lead plaintiff. He contested the policy mandating his daughter's attendance at a segregated and geographically distant Black school rather than a nearby white institution. Their argument, supported by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, asserted that segregation inflicted psychological harm on Black children by fostering feelings of inferiority, thereby constituting a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A White mother walks with her son past a group of African American students at the Bootheville Venice High School in 1966. File image/AP Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the Court's opinion, declared that 'separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,' directly rejecting the idea of truly equal opportunities under segregation. The ruling specifically highlighted the damaging psychological impact of segregation on Black students, citing research that demonstrated its negative influence on their development and sense of self-worth. The Brown ruling exerted a substantial influence on public education across the United States. Specifically, in Topeka, elementary schools underwent desegregation within a two-year timeframe. However, not all states accepted the Supreme Court's decision. This Day, That Year In 2004, Massachusetts became the first US state to legalise same-sex marriage. The first Kentucky Derby was run at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky on this day in 1875. The first meeting on what is now Wall Street in New York City took place in 1792.
Medscape
08-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Even ‘Weekend Warriors' Can Reduce GI Disease Risk
SAN DIEGO — The session started with a question that many in the audience at a May 4 session of Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025 seemed to relate to: 'How many of you find yourself squeezing workouts into a weekend after a hectic work week?' Although regular exercise three or more times a week is often viewed as preferable, Shiyi Yu, MD, a resident physician in the Department of Gastroenterology at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital in Guangzhou, China, had good news for weekend warriors. Both patterns reduce digestive disease almost equally. Her study compared weekend warriors with those she called 'active regulars' and sedentary folks to see how activity patterns affect digestive disease risks. Her bottom line: 'Your gut does not care about your schedule.' The researchers analyzed wrist-based accelerometer data from 89,595 participants in the UK Biobank. To categorize participants as active or inactive, they used the World Health Organization 2020 guidelines for physical activity, which recommend at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or at least 75-150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination throughout the week. Median age of participants was 63.3 years and 48.8% were men. They divided participants into three groups: About 43% were weekend warriors who met or exceeded 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 50% or more of total MVPA achieved in 1-2 days. About 23% were active regulars who met or exceeded 150 minutes a week but spread over more days. About 34% were inactive participants who were active less than 150 minutes a week. The researchers followed the participants for a median of 7.9 years, looking for the incidence of multiple digestive diseases, identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes. These included diverticulosis, constipation, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, cholelithiasis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Both activity patterns 'showed similar risk reduction with no significant difference,' Yu said. At the threshold ≥ 150 minutes, for instance, hazard ratios for any digestive disease were 0.83 for weekend warriors and 0.79 for active regulars, compared with sedentary participants. The analysis was repeated using a median threshold ≥ 230.4 minutes of MVPA a week, and the researchers found the same results. As a validation cohort, the researchers used more than 6,000 participants from the National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program with over 6 months of wrist-based accelerometer data. A recent meta-epidemiology study found that the weekend warrior pattern offers other health benefits, including reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease mortality, mental disorders, and metabolic syndrome. A Pleasant Surprise The digestive disease study's findings were 'a surprise and a pleasant one,' said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City. 'We often think if we're not able to exercise regularly, then there's no hope for us,' said Shaukat, who moderated the session. 'But this implies that even if we have time only during the weekend to engage in physical activity, it still confers benefits in reducing our risk of any GI health disorder, as well as cardiovascular or other health disorders, compared to people inactive at baseline.' 'It gives us flexibility in terms of how we structure our exercise. Obviously, people should try to get into the habit of doing regular activity; it's more sustainable. But a good alternative, according to this research, is that packing all of that in over the weekend seems to confer benefit. So all is not lost.' Will this change her conversation with patients moving forward? Absolutely, Shaukat said. She generally recommends physical activity for at least 30 minutes three times a week. Now Shaukat said she can tell patients: 'If that's not possible, take that time out during the weekend for your health'.
The Hindu
03-05-2025
- The Hindu
The great porn experiment of the 21st century: an epidemiological natural study
In a recent divorce ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court adjudicated a case where the husband accused his wife of being addicted to pornography, alleging that it amounted to cruelty within the marriage. But the court ruled that private viewing of adult content does not qualify as cruelty. While the court addressed the question through the lens of individual autonomy and marital privacy, the judgment invites a deeper inquiry: can pornography consumption be considered an addiction? Because the judiciary recognises substance addiction—like alcoholism or drug dependence—as valid grounds for divorce under the charge of cruelty. But pornography sits in a grey area. It is not a chemical substance but a sensory stimulus and leaves no visible scars on the body after consumption. However, it shares unsettling similarities with known addictive behaviours. The origins of erotic art The human fascination with erotic imagery is ancient. The sensuous murals of the Ajanta caves etching expressions of sexuality have always had their place in art. But never before in history could humans instantly access, stream, and interact with vast oceans of visually stimulation erotic material—free, anonymous, and available twenty-four hours a day. Today, an ordinary person can access more bodies, fantasies, and acts than a medieval king could dream of in his harem. The human brain is wired to respond to novelty in sexual mating. The Coolidge effect is a unique mammalian behavioural pattern that refers to the biological tendency to be re-stimulated by a new mate or stimulus. Modern pornography capitalises on this evolutionary trap with endless scrolls, categories, and ever-changing scenarios. It is not just about arousal; it is about novelty. This novelty acts as a supranormal stimulus, referring to artificially enhanced stimuli that hijack natural reward systems. Globally, studies suggest that pornography consumption is more prevalent among males than females, with self-reported surveys indicating that approximately 60–70% of young men and around 30–40% of young women engage in regular viewing. However, these numbers vary widely by age, cultural context, and methodology. The most reliable study to date—a nationally representative Australian survey—found that 4.4% of men and 1.2% of women 'considered themselves addicted to pornography'. India lacks large-scale, peer-reviewed research on pornography use. Much of the available data is based on self-reporting that is prone to bias. The line between habit and harm Pornography use is not classified as an addiction by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 & the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The ICD-11 does acknowledge 'Compulsive Sexual Behaviour Disorder', which includes persistent and distressing patterns of sexual behaviour like porn use, but places this under impulse control disorders, not addictions. This hesitation reflects a deeper scientific dilemma: where do we draw the line between habit and harm, between high-frequency use and clinical pathology? The difficulty in categorisation begins with the elusive nature of the behaviour itself. In the case of substances like alcohol or nicotine, thresholds can be defined in grams, blood levels, or measurable physical harm. With porn, the metric is psychological: does it interfere with daily functioning, does it cause distress, does it lead to compulsive patterns? The model includes impaired control (such as cravings or failed attempts to stop), functional impairment (neglect of work, studies, or relationships), and risky use (continuing the behaviour despite adverse consequences). This is further complicated by the fact that porn is sensory stimuli, not a physical drug like tobacco nor a tangible engagement like gambling. It doesn't require a casino, partners or money; unlike alcohol, it doesn't leave a smell or a hangover. All it needs is a smartphone and a closed door. This ease of access powered by the digital revolution makes porn consumption nearly frictionless. This invisibility makes it harder to measure, regulate, and study. The scientific community faces another challenge: there is no real control group or animal model. With the explosion of internet access post-2000, nearly all adolescents and young adults today have been exposed to pornographic content, often before they experience partnered intimacy. In this sense, our generation lacks a 'control group' or 'baseline', making it impossible to determine the long-term psychological effects of this exposure. When everyone smokes, lung cancer becomes normal. Unlike substances that can be tested in animal models to study addiction pathways, pornography—being a visual and cognitive experience unique to humans cannot be replicated in lab rats or monkeys. There is no rodent equivalent of compulsively watching or endlessly scrolling through nude mates. This absence of animal models has hampered the routine route of scientific enquiry and stalled the progress of understanding porn consumption. Porn use and the brain Neurobiological evidence about porn use however, is accumulating. Functional MRI studies have shown that people with compulsive porn use display altered activity in brain regions involved in reward processing, such as the ventral striatum and amygdala. Repeated exposure to high-stimulation erotic content results in what neuroscientists call 'sensitisation'—heightened response to cues—and 'desensitisation'—the need for more extreme or novel content to feel the same level of arousal. Over time, changes in the prefrontal cortex may weaken impulse control, mirroring what is seen in substance use disorders. These structural and functional changes are mediated by key neurotransmitters: dopamine, which regulates pleasure and reward; glutamate, which governs learning and habit formation; and serotonin, which modulates mood. Just like alcohol or cocaine, pornography also appears to rewire the brain. Clinically self-reported porn consumers reported heightened anxiety, insomnia, poor concentration, irritability, and relationship dissatisfaction. There is also growing concern about body image issues, unrealistic expectations about sex, and emotional detachment in intimate relationships. Pornography and the Young Person | Women Uninterrupted podcast - Season 5, Episode 2 An ongoing, natural experiment In epidemiology, natural experiments refer to large-scale phenomena not designed or controlled by scientists but observed historically to understand their impact. The widespread and unregulated consumption of digital pornography may be such an experiment. Just as Marie Curie worked with radioactive isotopes before understanding the dangers, or as Hollywood once glamorised cigarette smoking as a symbol of sophistication, we may be living through a phase of cultural naivety. We are normalising a behaviour whose long-term effects on brain development, social bonding, and emotional regulation we have yet to understand fully. No fixed threshold can define 'what's too much,' but science agrees that the brain is malleable. Whether this adaptation is healthy or harmful depends on the context, the individual, and the consequences. But as researchers continue to debate, as platforms continue to evolve, and as generations continue to consume, one thing becomes increasingly clear—we are in the midst of one of the largest unregulated psychological natural experiments in human history. And the results may take decades, if not longer, to fully unfold. The Madras High Court judgment appears well-aligned with existing medical consensus. Whether future evidence shifts this perspective remains uncertain, but for now, labelling porn use as cruelty lacks the clinical backing needed for such a legal conclusion, even though consuming it is not advisable. (Dr. C. Aravinda is an academic and public health physician. The views expressed are personal. aravindaaiimsjr10@
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
As physicians, we're pleading with you to get a little angrier
As an infectious diseases physician and emergency physician, we have been trained to think objectively, remain level-headed and stay calm amid uncertainty. But watching the Trump administration's dismantling of the U.S. research and public health infrastructure — which will allow infectious diseases to spread like wildfire and disrupt progress to combat all other conditions — has made us angry. Anger is usually looked down upon, even pathologized. It is a codable diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases, and there are evidence-based treatments to mitigate or cope with it. However, in this moment, we don't feel apologetic or ashamed about our anger; we'd argue that anger isn't as widespread in the U.S. as it ought to be. There is so much for scientists and health professionals to be really, truly angry about right now. Successful health-advancing institutions and initiatives that have taken decades to build are being derailed or discarded without a second thought. Clinical trials that serve as the last hope for dying patients are being abruptly halted. Disruptions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and uncertainty in research funding at universities are putting our patients, children and friends at risk, from both old diseases that they should never have to worry about and new diseases that they could be protected against — if we were to maintain a robust scientific and public health response system. This should make us angry. Measles should have been completely eradicated long ago, but because of anti-vaccine conspiracies, 2025 cases have already far surpassed those of 2024. Such destructive views and malicious lies have been propagated by our new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Funding has been ripped from the U.S. Agency for International Development, housing programs, and scientific research on HIV prevention and cancer and Alzheimer's disease. There are plans to gut Medicaid, which finances vital health care services for 84 million Americans, including women, children and older adults. Ebola has broken out in Uganda, but because President Donald Trump ended our relationship with the World Health Organization, we will likely not know when it gets here and, once we do know, it may be too late to respond effectively, especially with recent large cuts to health departments and programs that respond to outbreaks and perform pandemic-related community outreach and education. Then there are the arbitrary firings of federal employees at health agencies and slashing of scientist training programs including those focused on preventing overdose deaths. Though the onslaughts keep coming daily, Trump's approval rating has averaged about 45%, which, in our mind, means not enough Americans are angry enough — or do not know that they should be. To be sure, anger can manifest in harmful and destructive behaviors, which we obviously don't endorse. But recognizing and unleashing one's anger in constructive ways can be beneficial. It can fuel productive action. Evidence shows it may lead to better mental health outcomes than other emotions we are prone to feeling in this time, including depression or anxiety. Some research shows that naming emotions, especially unpleasant ones, can help regulate the nervous system and lead to a sense of calm. As Dr. Christina Girgis, associate professor of psychiatry at Loyola University Medical Center, told us, 'Basically, anger is something that we (as society) have attributed to negative descriptions, so people are afraid to feel it, but it is actually healthy and freeing to acknowledge and feel your anger.' Even the Christian Bible gives people permission to feel what they feel when it says 'Be angry, but sin not.' We shouldn't forget that anger can reflect ideal qualities, such as love and a sense of justice. It is a normal part of being a caring person and of seeing what and who we care about be threatened. When anger reflects compassion for those who are directly and indirectly affected by today's assault on medicine and science, it begins to seem not only acceptable and appropriate, but necessary. It validates an investment in our communities, an appreciation of the real harms threatening their health, safety, longevity and well-being. In this frame, failing to be angry is a more concerning symptom, one that signals indifference, complacency or lack of awareness. So perhaps the question right now is not whether we should be angry (yes), but rather, how best we should focus and deploy our anger. Psychologist Juli Fraga has written about how to validate and release our anger: It involves honoring 'what your anger wants you to do,' and figuring out how to make 'good use' of the anger. We know that many people are expressing their anger and translating it to action. People have been marching and protesting and speaking up at town hall meetings, calling and writing their legislators, starting petitions, posting on social media. But it doesn't feel sufficient yet. We need more visible and constructive anger from everyone — from ordinary individuals to institutional and elected leaders — around the fact that this administration is dismantling the infrastructure that keeps us physically healthy and economically stable. Within the scientific community, we need to make sure we translate what is happening to science and health care clearly and loudly to the public and show strong support for actions that will ensure the survival of the scientific process and of the institutions that do vital work to make our communities healthy. Are you feeling angry about what you're seeing happen around you? Good. Our prescription is that you keep getting angry and use that anger well. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Burnout is bad for business — and even worse for your team
Burnout is more than feeling a little stressed at work from time to time. The World Health Organization (WHO) takes burnout so seriously that it's included in the International Classification of Diseases. It's defined as chronic workplace stress that hasn't been successfully managed. The WHO estimates that burnout costs U.S. businesses a whopping $1 trillion in lost revenue every year. Not only can burnout affect your employees' well-being and lower morale, but it can also impact your company's financial bottom line. By learning more about burnout and taking proactive measures against burnout, you can protect your employees and your company's future, Rula explains. Burnout is a workplace phenomenon recognized by the World Health Organization. It's characterized by overwhelming stress, detachment and apathy, and decreased productivity. Burnout doesn't only affect employee well-being. It also considerably affects companies' bottom lines. As an employer or manager, you can do your part to prevent burnout by gathering employee feedback and closely examining the policies and practices that are leading them to feel burnt out. The biggest impact of burnout is its effect on your employees' mental and physical health. But burnout can be expensive for organizations too. Research and nationwide surveys show that burnout can lead to decreased productivity, lost revenue, increased tardiness and time away from work, and additional healthcare costs. According to the American Institute of Stress: Nearly half (47%) of employees say the majority of their stress comes from work Employees report losing an average of seven hours of productivity weekly due to financial stress Employers lose $183 billion per year due to decreased employee productivity Stress contributes to 40% of job turnover Additionally, burned-out employees are 2.6 times more likely to be actively searching for another job, affecting companies' ability to retain employees. Constantly hiring and training can be expensive too. It's important to recognize the burnout warning signs and take action when you see it. While burnout can look different across different people, employees might be burned out if they're: Less productive and struggle to complete tasks that once came easily Missing deadlines or showing up late more often than usual Expressing frustration, cynicism, or negativity about work Withdrawing from coworkers, like avoiding team meetings, group projects, or social interactions Overwhelmed by small challenges or more impatient than usual Reporting more frequent physical complaints, like headaches, fatigue, or trouble sleeping Losing interest in projects they used to be passionate about Making more mistakes or having trouble focusing Using more sick days, either because of mental health concerns or stress-related physical illness Not offering new ideas or participating in creative problem solving Showing signs of detachment or apathy There's a misconception that burnout is about individual employees. However, most of the time, the root of the issue is workplace policies, environments, or team dynamics. Some common causes of burnout include: Heavy workloads Long working hours Low pay Unreasonable time pressures and deadlines Lack of control and autonomy Lack of connection and community Toxic work environment Lack of reward and recognition No clear path for advancement Unfair treatment Lack of role clarity Addressing burnout will require more than a team pizza party or yoga classes. Burnout will need to be treated as a systemic issue, addressing the full workplace environment and processes that may be contributing to it. As an employer, here are 10 steps you can take to prevent burnout at your organization: Foster a workplace environment where it's safe to talk about mental and emotional health. Leaders can combat stigma by talking about their own mental health. This can make it more likely that your employees will feel comfortable coming to you for support when they feel burnt out. Get feedback on burnout. It's important to understand the exact reasons contributing to your employees' burnout so you can adequately address them. Provide anonymous avenues for feedback where employees know they can offer honest suggestions. Directly address workplace policies that may be contributing to burnout. Depending on your workplace, this could mean providing more flexible hours, options for child care, mental health benefits, shorter shifts, and more. Provide clear avenues for advancement. Part of burnout is feeling like you can't make a difference or grow in your role. Clarify what employees need to do to advance or receive a promotion. Ensure autonomy. Another aspect of burnout is feeling like you don't have control over how you do your work. That's why it's essential to offer as much employee autonomy as you reasonably can. For example, you might allow employees to complete work on a schedule that makes the most sense for their lifestyle. Recognize employees for their hard work. Not rewarding employees for their efforts can lead to or worsen burnout. So, make sure to recognize employees—whether it's entire teams or individuals—who do exceptional work. Assign people to passion projects. An important part of being a manager is identifying where specific employees thrive. Provide opportunities for employees to participate in special projects that align with their passions or unique skill sets. Connect the job to a greater meaning. When employees are burnt out, they may feel a lack of purpose. Leaders can help them understand the meaning behind what they do, like connecting it to their values or sharing the real-world impact of their work. Look at diversity and inclusion policies. Employees who belong to historically marginalized communities may have rightful claims of unfair treatment and discrimination in the workplace. Take a good look at your policies, both in recruitment and hiring as well as advancement. Is there anything more you could be doing to protect these employees Provide accessible mental health resources and policies. Organizations can prevent burnout through providing mental health days or accessible resources like therapy. This story was produced by Rula and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
