The Chagos Islands cases: the empire strikes back

Good governance requires the accommodation of multiple interests in the cause of decision making. However, undue regard for particular sectional interests can take their toll upon public faith in government administration. Historically, broad conceptions of the good of the commonwealth were employed to outweigh the interests of groups that resisted colonisation. In the decision making of the British Empire, the standard approach for justifying the marginalisation of the interests of colonised groups was that they were uncivilised and that particular hardships were the price to be paid for bringing to them the imperial dividend of industrial society. It is widely assumed that with the dismantling of the British Empire, such impulses and their accompanying jurisprudence became a thing of the past. Even as decolonisation proceeded apace after the Second World War, however, the United Kingdom maintained control of strategically important islands with a view towards sustaining its global role. In an infamous example from this twilight period of empire, in the 1960s imperial interests were used to justify the expulsion of the Chagos islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Into the twenty-first century, this forced elision of the UK’s interests with the imperial “common good” continues to take centre stage in courtroom battles over the islanders’ rights, being cited before domestic and international tribunals in order to maintain the Chagossians’ exclusion from their homeland. This article considers the new jurisprudence of imperialism which has emerged in a string of decisions which have continued to marginalise the Chagossians’ interests

Effect of withdrawing feed from hogs prior to slaughter on the prevalence of gastrointestinal lacerations at slaughter

To help producers decide whether they should withdraw feed prior to slaughter, we designed a study that examined the effect of feed withdrawal on the proportion of gastrointestinal tract lacerations, prevalence of Salmonella spp. in cecal contents at slaughter, prevalence and severity of gastric ulcers, and meat quality as measured by ultimate pH, color, and water holding capacity. Finally, we analyzed the economic impact of the treatments. This report focuses on the prevalence of lacerations of the gastrointestinal tract found at slaughter. We followed to slaughter, in 3 marketing groups, 900 National Pig Development barrows that we had assigned to treatment. Each marketing group (feed withdrawn once, first group; twice, second group; or three times, third group) had an equal number of pigs that had feed withdrawn for 0 (control) 12, or 24 hours. Overall, 15.7% of gastrointestinal tracts were lacerated in one or more sections including the stomach (8.4%), colon (5.7%), small intestine (2.1 %), and ceca (0.9%). The withdrawal of feed before slaughter decreased the weight of the gastrointestinal tract. The proportion of lacerations in this study (15.5%) is higher than previously reported (4.5%). The difference may be due to the higher rate of evisceration (18 pigs per minute), or our more detailed examination of the gastrointestinal tracts

Prevalence of Salmonella spp in the feces on farm and ceca at slaughter for a cohort of finishing pigs

To help producers decide whether they should withdraw feed prior to slaughter. we designed a study that examined the effect of feed withdrawal on the proportion of gastrointestinal tract lacerations. prevalence of Salmonella spp. in cecal contents at slaughter, prevalence and severity of gastric ulcers, and meat quality as measured by ultimate pH. color, and water holding capacity. Finally, we analyzed the economic impact of the treatments. This report focuses on the prevalence of Salmonella spp. in feces on the farm and cecal contents at slaughter

Management of hot flushes in UK breast cancer patients: clinician and patient perspectives

Introduction: Menopausal problems are among the most prevalent and distressing problems following breast cancer treatment, with 70% women experiencing hot flushes and night sweats (HFNS). A working party was set up to support the development of new research into the management of these problems. Methods: We conducted surveys to explore the need as perceived by women with breast cancer and establish current UK management practices. A patient survey was conducted through a charity, Breast Cancer Care, and a health professional survey via the UK Breast Intergroup. The HFNS Problem Rating Scale was used, as well as specific questions addressing the aims of the study. Results: Six hundred and sixty-five patients responded and 185 health professionals. Twenty-eight percent women had considered stopping adjuvant endocrine treatment because of HFNS, yet 34% had never been asked about HFNS by any health professional. The most commonly offered interventions were SSRIs, such as venlafaxine, yet only 25% patients had been offered these drugs. Cognitive behavioural therapy was rarely suggested (2%) despite good evidence. Discussion: This study shows a lack of coherence in the management of HFNS in breast cancer survivors, which may lead to reduced adherence to adjuvant therapy. There is an urgent need to develop guidelines to support management of HFNS after breast cancer