Recent efforts to elucidate the scientific validity of animal-based drug tests by the pharmaceutical industry, pro-testing lobby groups, and animal welfare organisations.

BACKGROUND: Even after several decades of human drug development, there remains an absence of published, substantial, comprehensive data to validate the use of animals in preclinical drug testing, and to point to their predictive nature with regard to human safety/toxicity and efficacy. Two recent papers, authored by pharmaceutical industry scientists, added to the few substantive publications that exist. In this brief article, we discuss both these papers, as well as our own series of three papers on the subject, and also various views and criticisms of lobby groups that advocate the animal testing of new drugs. MAIN TEXT: We argue that there still remains no published evidence to support the current regulatory paradigm of animal testing in supporting safe entry to clinical trials. In fact, the data in these recent studies, as well as in our own studies, support the contention that tests on rodents, dogs and monkeys provide next to no evidential weight to the probability of there being a lack of human toxicity, when there is no apparent toxicity in the animals. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, and in particular on this finding, it must be concluded that animal drug tests are therefore not fit for their stated purpose. At the very least, it is now incumbent on-and we very much encourage-the pharmaceutical industry and its regulators to commission, conduct and/or facilitate further independent studies involving the use of substantial proprietary data.

[Infantile acquired brain injury, a personal experience. Demands from the socio-familial point of view]. / Daño cerebral sobrevenido infantil, una experiencia personal. Reclamaciones desde el punto de vista sociofamiliar.

We report on the experience of a family in which the youngest child has acquired brain injury and the struggle undertaken by the family to improve the neurorehabilitation resources in the public health service. The article outlines the main demands, from the socio-familial point of view, as regards the improvement of neurological rehabilitation and the resources needed to deliver it.

TITLE: Daño cerebral sobrevenido infantil, una experiencia personal. Reclamaciones desde el punto de vista sociofamiliar.Se describe la experiencia de una familia en la que el hijo menor tiene daño cerebral sobrevenido y la lucha emprendida por la familia para mejorar los recursos neurorrehabilitadores de la sanidad publica. Se recogen las principales reclamaciones, desde el punto de vista sociofamiliar, en cuanto a la mejora en la atencion neurorrehabilitadora y los recursos necesarios.

Grassroots-to-global champions for maternal health.

Holistic nurses are called to think globally and contribute to the improvement of all communities. Often, the front lines of caring are beyond our physical reach, yet we can still make a difference by supporting global health both energetically and by raising our public voices. The Daring, Caring and Sharing to Save Mothers' Lives campaign is one example of holistic nurses who are raising awareness and expanding universal consciousness by daring to tell the untold and forgotten stories of global health.

When is collaboration not collaboration? When it's militarized.

In adopting the medical lobby's preferred definition of collaboration where midwives are legally compelled to seek endorsement for their care plan from an obstetrician, Determination 2010 connotes a form of militarized collaboration and thus negates all that genuine collaboration stands for--equality, mutual trust and reciprocal respect. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, the first half of this paper analyses the submissions from medical, midwifery and consumer peak organisations to the Maternity Services Review and Senate reviews held between 2008 and 2010 showing that Determination 2010 privileges the medical lobby worldview in adopting a vertical definition of collaboration. The second half of the paper responds to the principal assumption of Determination 2010--that midwives do not voluntarily collaborate. It argues by reference to a qualitative inquiry conducted into select caseload maternity units in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales during 2009-2010 that this presupposition is erroneous. The evidence shows that genuine collaboration is possible without legislative force but it requires a coalition of the willing among senior midwives and obstetricians to institute regular interdisciplinary meetings and clinical reviews and to model respectful behaviour to new entrants.