In this article, we claim that animal ethics and environmental ethics are incompatible ethical positions. This is because they have incompatible criteria of moral considerability and they have, at least in some cases, incompatible normative implications regarding the interests of sentient individuals. Moreover, we claim that environmentalist views lead to an insurmountable dilemma between inconsistency and implausibility and fail to properly account for the importance of wild animal suffering. From this it follows not only that (a) we can endorse one of the two views but not both at the same time but also that (b) we have overriding reasons to reject environmentalism and endorse some animal ethics view.
Revista de Bioética y Derecho, núm. 32, septiembre 2014, p. 95-103 Esta es una revista electrónica de acceso abierto, lo que significa que todo el contenido es de libre acceso sin coste alguno para el usuario o su institución. Los usuarios pueden leer, descargar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir o enlazar los textos completos de los artículos en esta revista sin pedir permiso previo del editor o del autor, siempre que no medie lucro en dichas operaciones y siempre que se citen las fuentes. Esto está de acuerdo con la definición BOAI de acceso abierto. Esta es una revista de acceso abierto, lo que significa que todo el contenido es de libre acceso sin costo alguno para el usuario o su institución. Los usuarios pueden leer, descargar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar, o enlazar los textos completos de los artículos en esta revista sin pedir permiso previo del editor o del autor, siempre que no medie lucro en dichas operaciones y siempre que se citen las fuentes. Esto está de acuerdo con la definición BOAI de acceso abierto.
Background: COVID-19 poses a significantly more serious threat to adults aged 65 and above, with a higher mortality rate. This study aims to describe the outcome of COVID-19 patients in the elderly and very elderly population admitted to a tertiary care Portuguese hospital. The authors defined the elderly population (65 to 79 years) and the very elderly population (≥ 80 years).Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational single center study in the internal medicine ward of a tertiary hospital from November 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021. All COVID-19 patients aged over 65 years were enrolled.Results: Of the 824 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 586 (71%) were aged above 65 years. Of them, 61.7% were very elderly and 32.9% were elderly. The hospital recorded 53 (27.5%) deaths in the elderly group and 182 (46.3%) in the over-80 group. In the elderly population, only 32 patients had critical illness compared to the 79 in the very elderly group. In addition to respiratory complications, acute kidney failure and liver dysfunction were noted. In both groups, mortality was higher when there was acute kidney injury (AKI). With respect to treatment, dexamethasone and azithromycin did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups. The need for oxygen therapy over 4L/min, high-flow therapy, and mechanical invasive ventilation was related to higher mortality in both groups.
Conclusion:The very elderly group had a higher number of deaths compared to the elderly group due to multiple comorbidities. Respiratory failure was the most frequently occurring complication. Surprisingly, dexamethasone and azithromycin therapy did not show a statistically significant effect in both age groups despite their current widespread usage in COVID-19 treatment worldwide.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.