Think Forward.

Learning Hypovolemic Shock in a Hard Way (or so I Thought) 2833

SilverSworntoWrite, 11 mon.
A few days ago, I suddenly felt cold after losing quite an amount of blood in the bathroom. I thought it was nothing unusual, but then I noticed the blood came out like water running down a faucet. I was not sure how much fluids I had lost, but a few seconds long was enough to know how bad it was. Before bed, I decided to search the web to satisfy my curiosity about my condition. Assuming to find common medical issues, I found out about a serious medical condition called "Hypovolemic Shock." The details are shocking and, without a doubt, mortified me. Thankfully my case was not severe (if not unrelated at all). I recovered in about 22 hours, although I had some headaches and numbness that went away by the next night. After recovering from the frightening experience, I was compelled to learn more about the condition, which led me to some surprising discoveries about hypovolemic shock. Disclaimer: This is just an overview of the topic I wrote for fun. If you want validation about your condition, please contact professional medical help. After reading several medical articles through the internet, I learned that hypovolemic shock is a serious condition caused by losing quite amount of blood or fluids within your body, and it is wise to quickly contact medical emergency as the condition poses a life-threatening risk. Hypovolemic shock can be divided to hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic type. Hemorrhagic shock happens when you lose fluids through serious blood loss, such as open wounds, internal bleeding, and childbirth. Meanwhile, non-hemorrhagic shock results from losing body fluids through other means, such as dehydration, diarrhea, and vomiting. Regardless of the difference, losing a lot of fluids can prevent the heart from sending blood through your body to function, which can lead to organ failure. Surprisingly, hypovolemic shock is the second most common shock, following distributive shock, and it commonly happens to children in developing countries, often due to diarrhea. Now, losing blood and other fluids is normal in everyday life without causing big side effect. Small losses, like from a small cut, nosebleed, or brief diarrhea, usually resolve on their own without causing bad effects. Generally, a person can lose about 14% of blood with no major side effects except perhaps for slight dizziness. And speaking of which, on average, men have more blood compared to women, while children, who have much less, are more vulnerable to the negative effects of blood loss. Since each individual has different amount of blood in them, it is important to measure the blood loss using percentage of the total blood volume in your body. One of the function of blood is to control body temperature (thermoregulation.) The body regulates the heat distribution by controlling the speed of the blood flow to and within the skin, either by narrowing or widening the blood vessels. When it is hot, the body widens the blood vessel (vasodilation) to cool down and release heat faster from the skin. Meanwhile, when it is cold, the body narrows the blood vessel (vasoconstriction) to keep the heat. When the amount of fluids is low, the body automatically narrows the blood vessels to keep the pressure normal and focus on distributing the blood to vital organs. What will happen when you lose more than 14% of blood? The quick answer is; you will start to experience the effect of blood loss. Depending on how fast you lose the fluids, you may feel tired and weak, with rapid breathing and pale skin, to more serious symptoms such as the decreased amount or no urine output, hypothermia, and unconsciousness. When the blood loss reaches more than 14%, hypovolemic shock will set in. Depending on how much blood percentage you have lost, hypovolemic shock can be separated into 4 stages: - The 1st stage: when you lose about 15% of your blood (around 750 mL.) At this stage, the symptoms have not occurred yet, and your heart rate and blood pressure may stay normal. - The 2nd stage: when you lose about 15% to 30% of your blood (around 750 mL to1,500 mL.) During this stage, the heart rate increases and breathing quickens as the blood vessels narrow to stabilize the pressure. - The 3rd stage: when you lose about 30% to 40% of your blood (around 1,500 mL to 2,000 mL.) At this stage, your blood pressure drops while your heart rate and breathing are getting faster. You begin to produce less to no urine output as the body tries to reserve the remaining fluids. - The 4th stage: when you lose about 40% or more of your blood (around 2,000 mL or more.) At this stage, your condition is at its critical and immediate professional attention provide slight survival chance. Your blood pressure is severely low, heart rate and breathing are high, urine output is absent, and organ failure is likely to happen and can become fatal. Hypovolemic shock is dangerous and needs immediate medical attention. In treating hypovolemic shock, medical help will try to replace the fluids you have lost using one or more IV (intravenous) lines, which is that long tube with a needle injected into your vein, and seal up the source of the fluid loss, such as open wound. Recovery time also takes some time and it is varied for each individual, depending on age, condition, and the severity of the shock. During recovery, you should listen to your health provider, and tell them your recovery progress so that they know your treatment goes to the right way. To sum it up, hypovolemic shock is a dangerous medical condition that we should never ignore, but understanding the signs can make a great difference. When blood or fluids loss persists longer than it should, contacting medical help can prevent unwanted experience to happen. And for my experience, I am grateful that my condition was not that alarming to demand me get out of bed in the middle of the night and call for an ambulance. This event, however, became a warning to keep an eye on my fiber intake more carefully and how important it is to take care of myself. For now, it is safe to say that I have survived my recklessness and ignorance for another day. Cheers. -Silver-
SilverSworntoWrite

SilverSworntoWrite

Hello, I am an aspired writer. I wish to train my creativity (and endurance) here to be a better writer.


0

0

Between Ideology and Pragmatism: The Spanish Radical Left's Controversial Stance on Moroccan Sahara... 249

Aziz Daouda, 1 d.
I confess here that it was the writings of Si Lahcen Hadad that pushed me to take a closer interest in this Spanish left, which positions itself in opposition to the Sánchez government, which is itself left-wing. Not reading Spanish, I am therefore somewhat less inclined to pay attention to the repeated ignominies of this left, sick from not being able to access power, sick from its aborted history, sick from what it actually is. So, to exist, it invented a cause. Too bad if it understands nothing about it, too bad if it harms Spain’s interests, too bad if it distorts history, ignores geography and demography, too bad if its reasoning, if it is reasoning at all, is far from logical, too bad if it lies outrageously. The important thing is to exist and to appear to the Spanish public as the defender of the causes of the most deprived... No matter if those people harmed the Spanish people; no matter if they have Spanish blood on their hands. Manifest bad faith. In Spain, therefore, a significant part of the radical left, mainly represented by formations such as Unidas Podemos, an alliance between Podemos, Izquierda Unida, and other minority groups, maintains a posture—let’s say critical, if not belligerent—towards the Kingdom of Morocco. This contradictory position is fed by a historical prism marked by colonial memory, “anti-imperialist” struggles, but also by the question of the Sahara, called the "Spanish Sahara" until 1975, as it was a former territory under Spanish domination until the Green March in 1975. This radical left considers Morocco a belligerent and threatening actor. The debate is not limited to territorial disputes: it fits into an ideological vision where the Moroccan state is often presented as an authoritarian and repressive regime, described as a neocolonial power. This is what underpins the repeated support for the artificial Sahrawi cause, presented as an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fight. Support for the Polisario Front thus seems embedded in the DNA of these “gauchos,” regardless of developments. Historically, several components of the Spanish left have expressed clear support for the Polisario Front, founded in 1973, which was nevertheless supported by Gaddafi, then hosted, supplied, and armed by the Algerian regime with the aim of harming Morocco’s interests. This support manifests itself in various forms: - Filing parliamentary motions in defense of the right to self-determination for this small part of the Sahara alone; - Participation in international pro-Polisario forums and associative networks that blindly support it, regardless of reports on the embezzlement of aid, rapes, and flagrant human rights abuses in Tindouf; - Pressure on the Spanish government and European institutions to recognize the political status of the Sahara, neglecting to mention that it was formerly occupied by their country, as a territory to be decolonized, in opposition to Morocco’s historical sovereignty. Even the autonomy proposal, well known in Spain, does not seem to satisfy them. However, it should be noted that this support comes in a context of strong internal contestation in Spain. Since the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez expressed its support in 2022 for the Moroccan autonomy plan, this radical position has somewhat fractured. This change reflects a pragmatic adaptation by some to the geopolitical, economic, and migratory realities that closely link the two countries. Faced with challenges related to managing migratory flows through the occupied enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as security and economic cooperation with the Kingdom of Morocco, the Spanish government has refocused its diplomacy. This has led to a gradual distancing of the left—but not the radical left—from the Polisario, thus marginalizing its influence on official policy. In this context, some voices within the radical left still try to persuade European institutions to keep pressure on Morocco, demanding that the so-called Western Sahara remain central to priorities to resolve an “unresolved colonial conflict.” Parliamentary groups and “pro-Sahrawi” NGOs continue to denounce bilateral agreements between Madrid and Rabat, refusing that the issue be sidelined in favor of a more “pragmatic” diplomacy. Spanish and European institutions, the theater of these ideological tensions, thus see the radical left forces seeking to have the question of the so-called Western Sahara recognized as a “state matter.” They denounce Moroccan control over this dossier and strongly contest the diplomatic normalization policies carried out by Madrid. This line reflects a deep political fracture, where post-colonial idealism and outdated self-determination claims clash head-on with political realism marked by the search for regional strategic balances. Support for the so-called Sahrawi cause is not without controversy. Activists, commentators, and victims have recalled that the Polisario Front was, in the past, involved in violent operations in Spanish territorial waters, causing the death of Spanish fishermen. These painful episodes resonate in Spanish public opinion and fuel a virulent critique of radical positions that support a movement with a past combining political struggle and violent actions. This memory weighs heavily in contemporary debate and is exploited by political forces opposed to these radical left positions, notably the Spanish right. The question of the Sahara, a territory that was Spanish for a time, remains an important point in relations between Spain and Morocco. However, current political, economic, and security realities push for pragmatic Spanish diplomacy, favorable to strengthened cooperation with Rabat, thus marginalizing the radical stance on both governmental and international stages. The historical legacy is here perfectly exploited for contemporary necessities in managing Ibero-Moroccan relations. Today, after consulting numerous articles and writings recounting the positions of this left of another era, I understand a little better Si Lahcen Hadad's fight on the subject, and even more so his sharp responses to the remarks of a certain Ignacio Cembrero, whom I now see only as a bland neurotic. Thank you, Si Lahcen. One question remains: why is the Moroccan left not more inclined to take a stand and strongly denounce the alienated stance of their Spanish counterparts?