Minerals and blood pressure

The mineral elements sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium play a central role in the normal regulation of blood pressure. In particular, these mineral elements have important interrelationships in the control of arterial resistance. These elements, especially sodium and potassium, also regulate the fluid balance of the body and, hence, influence the cardiac output. Evidence shows that the present levels of intake of mineral elements are not optimum for maintaining normal blood pressure but predispose to the development of arterial hypertension. Research results suggest that without sodium chloride (common salt) and other sodium compounds being added to the diet arterial hypertension would be virtually non existent. Moreover, blood pressure would not rise with age. In communities with a high consumption of added sodium, a high intake of potassium and, possibly, magnesium seem to protect against the development of arterial hypertension and the rise of blood pressure with age. A marked reduction of sodium intake is effective in treating even severe hypertension. A moderate restriction of sodium intake or an increase in potassium intake exert remarkable antihypertensive effects, at least in some hypertensive patients. Magnesium and possibly also calcium supplements may be effective in reducing blood pressure in some hypertensives. In hypertensive patients treated with drugs sodium restriction and potassium and magnesium supplementation enhance the therapeutic effect, reduce the number and dosage, and lessen the adverse effects of prescribed antihypertensive drugs. Hence, a fall in sodium consumption and increases in potassium and magnesium consumption are useful in preventing and treating arterial hypertension.     

Involving patients in do not resuscitate (DNR) decisions: an old issue raising its ugly head.

A recent paper in this journal (1) suggests that involving terminally ill patients in choices concerned with Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) produces 'psychological pain' and therefore is ill-advised. Such a claim rests on anecdotal observations made by the authors. In this paper I suggest that drawing conclusions in ethics, no less than in science, requires a rigorous framework and cannot be relegated to personal observation of a few cases. The paper concludes by suggesting that patients, if we acknowledge their valid interest in making their own choices, must themselves be allowed to make a prior choice about choosing. Those who may not wish to choose may properly be relieved of this burden and may allow another to choose for them. Routinely allowing others to make choices for competent adults, however, is likely to decrease communication with the dying patient and to introduce an atmosphere of suspicion and fear and to exclude the competent patient from his/her rightful place in the community.