How Were Conflicts of Interest Handled?

Conflicts of interest were potentially great but they were minimized by the great conviction from both Doctors and Health Ministry that something had to be done to improve data on perinatal health. To decrease the number of hospitals where deliveries took place, to concentrate doctors, nurses and equipment, to define staff and to acquire equipment and to train nurses and paediatricians was the way. One the point of view of cost-effectiveness, centralization of expensive technologies, and development of expertise concentrating cases in a same centre - Surgery, VLBW, etc- and lowering mortality rates and get better outcomes were clear health gains. In 1989 after the political decision of closing small maternities the committee return to villages and cities to explain to political local power and people, the decision, which kind of care they will have in the future, why and expected gains. Level I hospitals and Health Centers stop to have deliveries; Health Centers were given a great responsibility: the follow up of the most part of the normal pregnancies by GP. There was no economic pressure because the National Health Service is free, there are no economic incentives for obstetrical or neonatal care, hospitals are financed through ICD, hospital level is defined according to both delivery and newborn care. In 1989 the rule was “No results can be obtained without the interested and responsible participation of all – institutions and people”. At that time the emphasis was on training. There are geographic influences on regionalization for example for islands and inner and far geographic areas. Also we would like to emphasize the influence of demographics on regionalization. As birth rate continues to decrease the hospitals left open 20 years ago with more than 1500 deliveries have to be closed now because the number of deliveries decreased. It was much more difficult and unacceptable to close some few maternities now than 20 years ago. All the difference was that at that time reasons were explained and now it was a Minister order. Other fearful events are the opening of private hospitals, the lowering gross national income, the economic difficulties and financial problems.

Epilepsy and Physical Exercise

Epilepsy is one of the commonest neurologic diseases and has always been associated with stigma. In the interest of safety, the activities of persons with epilepsy (PWE) are often restricted. In keeping with this, physical exercise has often been discouraged. The precise nature of a person’s seizures (or whether seizures were provoked or unprovoked) may not have been considered. Although there has been a change in attitude over the last few decades, the exact role of exercise in inducing seizures or aggravating epilepsy still remains a matter of discussion among experts in the field. Based mainly on retrospective, but also on prospective, population and animal-based research, the hypothesis that physical exercise is prejudicial has been slowly replaced by the realization that physical exercise might actually be beneficial for PWE. The benefits are related to improvement of physical and mental health parameters and social integration and reduction in markers of stress, epileptiform activity and the number of seizures. Nowadays, the general consensus is that there should be no restrictions to the practice of physical exercise in people with controlled epilepsy, except for scuba diving, skydiving and other sports at heights. Whilst broader restrictions apply for patients with uncontrolled epilepsy, individual risk assessments taking into account the seizure types, frequency, patterns or triggers may allow PWE to enjoy a wide range of physical activities.