Q: Relatives of a dying lady I was caring for kicking and screaming not to give their Mum pain relief because they were so terrified / knew it would probably be the thing to end her life. She had a horrible aggressive cancer that ravaged her whole body and needed very regular doses of strong pain relief which - as she had a terminal illness and was receiving end of life care - did not have an upper limit so to speak. She had pain relief as and when needed to make her comfortable and that often results in people ultimately overdosing. Mum had Alzheimer's and was howling and writhing in agony so we were giving her pain relief but daughters knew it would probably result in her death - which they were right about possibly happening and in their grief and panic, started trying to prevent us from doing anything. Didn’t want us getting near her at all and we had to go through an awful scenario of trying to explain what we had to do for Mum and why and when they still wouldn’t have it or allow us near, we had to do what nobody wants and go against their wishes by administering the pain relief anyway. One daughter screamed the place down, threatened to have me arrested and struck off / said she would go to the papers and tell them about how we killed her Mum and in the end she had to be removed from the bedroom. Her Mum was given the pain relief, immediately relaxed and fell asleep then died peacefully in her sleep about 15 mins later. The saddest thing is her daughter wasn’t able to be there and see her Mum dropping off so peacefully and her last memory will forever be of her screaming and thrashing about as she (daughter) was physically removed from the room. Tragic. How long did mum live after receiving end of life care  A. a year  B. 6 months  C. 3 days  D. not enough information
A: C


Q: But corrected figures, provided by the U.S. military and published Tuesday by SIGAR, suggest that the actual decline was 17,980. Pentagon officials acknowledged originally providing inaccurate figures to SIGAR because of a failure "to account for the transfer of most of the Afghan Border Force from the Afghan National Police to the Afghan National Army," according to a SIGAR statement. According to the new figures, there were 313,728 members of the Afghan defense forces as of January 31, 2018. That compares to a total of 296,409, as previously reported. "SIGAR receives all of the (Afghan National Defense and Security Forces) personnel strength numbers published in the quarterly report from USFOR-A and has no means of independently verifying them," the statement added. The new figures still amount to a sharp decline. Afghan forces suffered unprecedented casualties in 2017, reportedly losing about 10,000 personnel, according to reports. SIGAR has been unable to publicly disclose the exact number of Afghan forces killed, because that information continues to be classified by Washington and Kabul. The violence has led to increased reports of Afghan military desertions, but that information too has been classified. Senior U.S. military officials repeatedly have acknowledged the nearly 17-year-old conflict remains a stalemate, even while touting some successes under the new strategy announced by President Donald Trump in August. Those success include the increasing capability of the Afghan military, which began conducting airstrikes two years ago. The Afghan air force carries out between four to 12 airstrikes every day, according to the Afghan Ministry of Defense. But the Kabul government controls just over half of the country's districts, SIGAR says. Trump's strategy appeared to commit the U.S. to Afghanistan indefinitely. It involves pressuring Pakistan to end its support for Afghan militants, supporting Kabul's effort to engage the Taliban in peace talks, and dropping more bombs on the country. The U.S.-led... Why do Washington and Kabul keep the information about desertions classified?  A. They probably feel that it might damage morale  B. not enough information  C. They probably feel it would cause Donald Trump to commit more American forces to Afghanistan  D. They probably feel that it might compel the deserting soldiers to return
A: A


Q: At an early meeting of the British Sociological Association’s “Activism in Sociology Forum” members met to discuss how we might play a more campaigning role in the world outside the academy. Pragmatically, academics tend to work long hours. We are faced with multiple and competing demands: teaching, administration, publishing, marketing, research, grant-bidding, and so on. The REF has ramped up the requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of our research in “the real world” (our impact upon society, economy, and culture rather than upon knowledge per se, or upon the academic discipline). Maybe here – I suggested, as my contribution to the meeting – was a chance for those of us interested in progressing social justice to lever officially sanctioned space, in our busy day-to-day lives, to do more of this sort of work? Maybe we should welcome the REF impact agenda? I learned afterwards that eminent British sociologists, whom I respect enormously, regarded such a viewpoint as “naïve” and “embarrassing”. Indeed, critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neoliberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research (with monies channelled through research councils to individual projects or via regular, six-yearly centralised assessments of the quality of research in university departments). In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the “impact industry”; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study... The sociologist probably feel that  A. the narrator is extremely smart  B. not enough information  C. the narrator is not that knowledgeable  D. they are superior
A: C


Q: Called the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, this was a very large observational study looking at the link between fat and carbohydrate consumption and longevity in 18 countries across 5 continents. Running for 7 years and involving over 135,000 people, this was a very big study so its conclusions are right to take notice of. The key finding from the work that attracted the most media attention was that a high carbohydrate diet was linked with a higher risk of earlier mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to a lower risk of earlier mortality. Digging deeper into the study, the research team found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats. And while those in the highest carbohydrate consumption group (a whopping 77 percent of energy) had a higher risk of earlier death, it wasn’t cardiovascular disease they were dying from. What those other causes of death were exactly is unclear. Perhaps getting hit by a car running for a Mars Bar was one of them as a recent commenter on my Facebook page theorised. A paradigm shift? Not quite Does this study turn on its head ‘everything we knew about nutrition?’ Not quite. And here’s why. Before the PURE study, there were many studies showing the opposite link between carbohydrates and longevity. So, when a conflicting study comes along, this grabs the media spotlight for the day. Here is just one example – a major systematic review and meta-analysis from 2013 involving 17 individual studies and over 242,000 people showing a higher risk of earlier mortality as carbohydrate intake decreased. And this is the problem at times with observational research in that two studies can give polar opposite results so the findings of the PURE study should be seen through this filter. I’m not going to pick apart the PURE study for its flaws. Such issues are consistent across all observational studies no matter if the conclusions support consensus views or not. What is of value to... Who found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats?  A. researchers in the PAD study  B. not enough information  C. researchers in the POP study  D. researchers in the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study
