Treating Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy with Ginger

Treating Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy with Ginger Qi-Cai Liu Tiran, D. (2012). Ginger to reduce nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: Evidence of effectiveness is not the same as proof of safety. Complimentary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 18(1), 22-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2011.08.007 This article presents a systemic review of the mechanism and safety of using ginger to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). In the article, the author first introduced the history of ginger as a traditional remedy in some eastern countries, then discussed the potential risk of several different forms of ginger that were available in the UK market. After that, the author explored the mechanisms of gingers anti-emetic function. Ginger can inhibit serotonin receptor and suppress vasopressin, as well as reduce tachygastric activity. However, the exact mechanism still remains unclear. The author pointed out that there was no consistency in dosages and forms of ginger among current studies, and the differences between nausea and vomiting was not fully understood. Next, the author discussed the safety of using ginger. The author believed that ginger should be treated as a pharmacological medication rather than a natural remedy. Therefore, it should be administered with safe dosages and be obtained from the correct plant, Zingiber officinale. Following that, the author discussed gingers potential adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, as well as contraindications and precautions. For example, ginger should be contraindicated for women who have a history of miscarriage because anticoagulation is one of its notable side effects. At the end of article, the author offered a contraindications and precautions checklist, which is very useful for health care providers to identify which women should avoid ginger. The limitation of this article is that it did not emphasize gingers therapeutic effects. The strength of this article is the valuable safety checklist. Overall, this article increased the awareness that ginger, although a natural remedy, has side effects and contraindications too. Ozgoli, G., Goli, M. Simbar, M. (2009). Effects of ginger capsules on pregnancy, nausea, and vomiting. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(3), 243-246. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0406 This article describes a single blind clinical trial to determine function of ginger on nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). 70 pregnant women who experienced nausea and vomiting before 20 weeks of gestation participated this study. Prior to the treatment with ginger, the baseline levels of nausea and vomiting symptoms were measured via a standard visual analogue scale. The participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group and control group. In the experimental group, 35 participants were treated with ginger at a dose of 1000mg/day for 4 days. 35 participants in the control group were treated with a placebo (lactose) with the same dose and prescription form. The treatment effects were measured by asking participants to finish the 4-page questionnaire and record nausea intensity twice a day (3 participants from experimental group failed to complete the questionnaire). A statistically significant decrease in the nausea and vomiting intensity with ginger treatment was rep orted. 85% of women who received the ginger treatment reported an improvement of nausea symptoms, while only 56% reported improvement in the control group. In addition, the vomiting times for the pregnancy are also significantly decreased in the experimental group comparing to control group (50% versus 9%). The materials and methods section was well developed with clear description of experimental design, samples selection, data collection and analysis. The strengths of this article are the rigorous experimental design and large sample size. The limitation of this study, as mentioned by the authors, is the short assessment period. As a result, some ginger adverse effects may not be able to discover. The findings of this study provide some evidence-based information about effects of ginger for NVP. Ensiyeh, J., Sakineh, MC. (2009). Comparing ginger and vitamin B6 for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial. Midwifery, 25(6), 649-653. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.10.013 This study conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of vitamin B6 and ginger for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). 70 pregnant women who experienced nausea and vomiting symptoms before their 17 weeks gestation participated this study. Half of them were randomly selected to receive ginger 1g per day treatment for 4 days. As a control, half of them received vitamin B6 40 mg per day treatment at same time. The nausea intensity was measured via a visual analogue scale during the treatment plus 24 hours before. The vomiting episodes were also recorded in the same period. The treatment responses at a 7-day follow-up were measured via a five-point Likert scale (one participant from control group failed to return to clinic later). Their results showed that both ginger and vitamin B6 treatment could decrease the symptoms of nausea, and ginger worked significantly better than the vitamin (p=0.024). In terms to vomiting episodes, both ginger and vitamin B6 could reduce the frequency of vomiting, and there was no significant difference between them. In the 7-day follow-up visiting, there were 29/35 participants in ginger group and 23/34 participants in vitamin B6 group reported a decrease of nausea reaction (p=0.52). This trial was well designed with large sample size, strict sampling inclusion criteria, and rigor experimental process. The strength of this study is that they measured and compared the long-term effects of ginger and vitamin B6 on the pregnancy outcomes, such as abortion and preterm birth. The limitation of this study is that they changed the participants dietary, which might influence the treatments and outcomes. The findings of this study provide some evidence-based knowledge about the efficiency of ginger and vitamin B6 in the NVP treatment, as well as their long-term effects. Therapy Assessment Nausea and vomiting are the most common unpleasant complications in early pregnancy. There were about 70-80% of women experienced nausea and 50% of them experienced vomiting episodes during their early pregnancy (Ensiyeh Sakineh, 2009). That means there are about 350,000 Canadian women experience nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) every year (Lee Saha, 2011). The pathogenesis of NVP remains unclear. However, it is widely accepted that NVP is correlated to the hormone changes during gestation, such as the human chorionic gonadatropin (hCG), progesterone, and estrogen (Lee Saha, 2011). It was reported that the peak of NVP is positive correlated to hCG peak, and hCG could regulate gastric smooth muscle activity by stimulating placental prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (Lee Saha, 2011). Progesterone also has a function of gastric emptying by decreasing smooth muscle contractility (Lee Saha, 2011). NVP can cause more undesirable consequences for the pregnant women than uncomfortable, such as s ocial interactions, families, and careers (Ozgoli, Goli, Simbar, 2009). About 25% of employed pregnant women have to leave their jobs due to the nausea and vomiting symptoms (Ensiyeh Sakineh, 2009). As a result, it may bring some financial and psychological problem for them, which will further influence the health status of themselves and even their babies (Ozgoli et al., 2009). Most important, nausea and vomiting symptoms can also change dietary and may lead to malnutrition for themselves and their babies. Therefore, it is very important for the women, who are experiencing NVP, to get treatment in time. In terms to the treatments of NVP, there are nonpharmacologic approach and pharmacologic approach (Lee Saha, 2011). The nonpharmacologic approach includes dietary measures, emotional support, acupuncture, and ginger. The pharmacologic approach includes pyridoxin-doxylamine, antiemetics, promotility agents, and antihistamines. The goal of treatment is to release the symptoms and reduce risks for the women and fetus. It has a long history for using ginger as an herbal medicine to treat NVP in some eastern countries, such as China, Japan, and India (Tiran, 2012). Pregnant women in western countries also knew gingers anti-emetic effects for a long time (Tiran, 2012). However, it was until recently, the effects of ginger for NVP were studied in the scientific way (Ensiyeh Sakineh, 2009; Ozgoli et al., 2009). In the Ozgoli et al. study (2009), a single blind clinical trial was conducted to investigate the effects of the ginger for NVP. Their results found that, 1000mg/day ginger treatment could significant decrease nausea symptoms, as well as reduce the frequency of vomiting. In Ensiyeh andSakineh study (2009), a double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the function of ginger and vitamin B6 for NVP. Their results showed that both ginger and vitamin B6 could reduce the vomiting frequency. The ginger was more efficiency on reduce nausea symptoms than vitamin B6, which has a wel l known effects on treating NVP. The strength of these two studies is that they proved the gingers effects on NVP in the scientific way. However, both studies failed to explore the mechanism about how ginger can effectively treat NVP, and one study failed to measure the long-term adverse effects of ginger. These are the weaknesses of these two studies. Based on these research results, I would like to say ginger is an effective alternative therapy for NVP. In the future nursing practice, I would like to recommend pregnant women to take this herbal medicine to treat their NVP symptom. However, as Tiran (2012) suggested, ginger should also be treated like a pharmacological drug. I must be very cautious about its mechanisms, adverse effects, drug/food interactions, and contraindications before making the recommendation. Being familiar with these knowledge will also enable me to educate each pregnant woman why she can or cannot take ginger to treat her NVP. Mechanisms It is well known that ginger is very effective for treating NVP symptoms (Ensiyeh Sakineh, 2009; Ozgoli et al., 2009). However, the mechanism of its anti-emetic effects still remains unclear (Tiran, 2012). What already known are that the three ginger indigents: gingerols, shogaol, and zingiberence, can bind to serotonin (5-HT) receptor and block its function to inhibit nausea and vomiting (Tiran, 2012). The major anti-emetic substance in ginger was thought to be gingerols (Tiran, 2012). In addtition, ginger also was reported that it could reduce nausea and vomiting symptoms through suppressing vasopressin to decrease stomach activity (Tiran, 2012). Except these gastrointestinal tract effects, Tiran (2012) thought ginger might also have some effects on the central nervous system. For example, it has sedative and hypnotic functions. Adverse effects The adverse effects of ginger can be easily ignored by both pregnant women and health care providers due to its natural remedy character (Tiran, 2012). Like other pharmacological medications, ginger also has some adverse effects (Tiran, 2012). First, ginger has side effects on gastrointestinal tract (Tiran, 2012). Ginger can cause stomach irritant and then lead to heartburn, which may due to its weakly cholinergic function (Tiran, 2012). With the same function, ginger also can stimulate the bile secretion (Tiran, 2012). It is also reported that poorly chewed ginger can cause intestinal blockage (Tiran, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to recommend women to masticate ginger properly if they are prescribed with the dried root ginger (Tiran, 2012). Second, ginger has adverse effects on cardiovascular system. It is reported that ginger can cause hypotension and that is one reason why some women felt dizziness after had the ginger herbal (Tiran, 2012). Ginger can also cause cardiac arrhy thmias, which may due to the interaction with beta receptors (Tiran, 2012). Third, ginger has side effects on the blood. One of its notable side effects is anticoagulant, which increases the risk of bleeding (Tiran, 2012). Beside that, ginger also can lower the blood glucose level, which may increase the risk of hypoglycemia (Tiran, 2012). Fourth, ginger can produce side effects of hot, sweating, constantly thirsty, and looking for cold drinks. These symptoms are caused by its cholinergic function (Tiran, 2012). Last, it needs to keep awareness that the long-term adverse effects of ginger on fetus development are still not fully understood (Tiran, 2012). Drug/food interactions Like other pharmacological medications, ginger also has the interactions with other drugs or food (Tiran, 2012). First, abundant evidences showed that ginger can interact with some prescribed medications, such as beta antagonists, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, as well as other herbs such as gingko balboa (Tiran, 2012). Second, ginger has weakly cholinergic function (Tiran, 2012). Therefore it can have interaction with other cholinergic drugs, including antagonists and agonists. For example, ginger can interact with donepezil, a muscarinic agonist, as both can increase the bile secretion. Third, ginger can interact with other drugs which can increase or decrease blood pressure as ginger can cause hypotension (Tiran, 2012). For example, ginger can reduce the anti-hypotension function of epinephrine, an adrenergic agonist. Fourth, ginger can lower blood glucose level (Tiran, 2012). Therefore it can interact with other drugs which can increase or decrease blood glucose level, such as in sulin and metformin. Fifth, as mentioned previously, ginger has the function of anticoagulant (Tiran, 2012). Therefore, ginger can interact with other anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs, such as heparin, warfarin, and aspirin. Last, ginger can cause cardiac arrhythmia (Tiran, 2012). As a result, ginger can interact with other drugs with can cause cardiac arrhythmia too, such as Levodopa. Contraindications As ginger has some adverse effects and drug interactions, it should be contraindicated to the pregnant women who have relevant diseases or are taking the interactive drugs. First, ginger should be contraindicated for the women with certain gastrointestinal tract diseases (Tiran, 2012). Pregnant women with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or heartburn symptom should avoid ginger as it can worsen this symptom by irritating stomach (Tiran, 2012). Pregnant women with a history of gallstones should be contraindicated because ginger can stimulate the secretion of bile (Tiran, 2012). Dried root ginger should not be prescribed to pregnant women who have lower gastrointestinal tract disease, such as duodenal ulcer, as it may cause intestinal blockage (Tiran, 2012). Second, pregnant women with certain cardiovascular diseases should also be contraindicated from ginger (Tiran, 2012). Ginger can cause hypotension (Tiran, 2012), therefore the women who with hypotension symptom or are taking anti-hypertensive drugs to control their blood pressure should not take ginger. Ginger also can cause cardiac arrhythmia (Tiran, 2012). As a result, ginger should not be prescribed to the pregnant women who have cardiac arrhythmia or are taking anti-arrhythmic drugs, such as Na+ and K+ channel blockers. Tiran (2012) even suggested that all the herbal remedies and complementary therapies should be contraindicated for pregnant women who have major cardiac diseases. Third, ginger should be contraindicated for pregnant women with bleeding disorders as it has a function of anticoagulant. Tiran (2012) suggested that any pregnant women who had a history of miscarriage, vaginal bleeding, or clotting disorder should not take ginger. These women who may have a surgery several weeks later also should stop taking ginger at least two weeks before the operation (Tiran, 2012). Fourth, ginger has a function of lower blood glucose (Tiran, 2012). Therefore ginger should be avoided from those women wh o are taking drugs to control their diabetes mellitus, such as insulin and metformin. The women who have hypoglycemia also should also be contraindicated from ginger. Last, ginger has interactions with the benzodiazepines, beta blockers, and gingko biloba (Tiran, 2012). Therefore it should be avoided for the pregnant women who are taking those drugs. Conclusion Ginger is an effective herbal medicine in treating NVP although its mechanism still remains to explore. As a pharmacological medication, ginger has its own adverse effects, drug/food interactions, and contraindications. Ginger is not always safe for every pregnant woman who are experiencing nausea and vomiting symptoms. The women prescribed with ginger should be educated with its adverse effects and its possible interaction with other drugs. In addition, the women, who have certain gastrointestinal tract diseases, certain cardiovascular diseases, bleeding disorders, and hypoglycemia, should also be contraindicated from ginger. Overall, ginger should be treated like a pharmacological medication rather than a natural remedy when being prescribed for NVP treatment. References Ensiyeh, J., Sakineh, MC. (2009). Comparing ginger and vitamin B6 for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial. Midwifery, 25(6), 649-653. Doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.10.013 Lee, N., Saha, S. (2011). Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America, 40(2), 309-334. Doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2011.03.009 Ozgoli, G., Goli, M. Simbar, M. (2009). Effects of ginger capsules on pregnancy, nausea, and vomiting. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15(3), 243-246. Doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0406 Tiran, D. (2012). Ginger to reduce nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: Evidence of effectiveness is not the same as proof of safety. Complimentary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 18(1), 22-25. Doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2011.08.007

Venezuela

There have been many current events that have violated human rights, one of them is that Venezuela is suffering from lack of food and medicine they are given and their leader isn't doing anything about this but other leaders are trying to help out Venezuela , there are many things that are being done in order to Prevent future events like this, because this can't start happening around the world, Colombia, Cuba, and Argentina are already starting to have problems like this and this could get out of control. Venezuela use to be one the the wealthiest countries until the 19th century, that's when they started to have economic and political crisis. Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro is denying the fact that Venezuela people are staring and not having access to good health care. Many people are starving and others are in the hospital, and not having enough medicine for everyone because the hospitals are getting filled with injured people. Since the hospital doesn't have enough supplies for everyone they ask patients to bring their own medicine and which most patients can't afford. According to † Venezuela's health care crisis † the video states that even when their own patients bring in their own medicine, they are stolen inside the hospital.This Hospital use to have staff 24/7 working on surgerys and helping other patients while now there are people that have been waiting to have surgery for days. The Violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Article 7 which is â€Å"You have the right to be treated by the law in the same way as everyone else.Everyone has the right protection against violation of their human rights† and Article 8 â€Å"If your rights under law are violated , you have the right to see justice done in court or tribunal.† This is saying that every person in Venezuela should be treated the same and have the same health care. People in venezuela are dying and starving because of the lack of food and medicine and health care they are given. According to CNN, this crisis that is happening in Venezuela had started around 2015 where people were having less than one meal a day. It's sad to see that newborns are being put in cardboard boxes after their mother give birth. According to FP people have been use to having one meal a day while others are hunting for dogs pigeons and cats. People In Latin America would feel rich with just one dollar or maybe some clean water while people here in America are wasting food and aren't grateful for one dollar. This rich Country is suffering because of one person which is their leader Nicolas Maduro. We can start helping Venezuela by just donating one dollar, because that would mean a lot to them. Donald Trump is also helping out with this situation.According to U.S.NEWS president Donald Trump he states that he promises â€Å"strong and swift economic actions† to counter Maduro's antidemocratic measures.† What Donald Trump is doing is he is restricting the revenue that Nicolas Maduro planned and benefit from oils form the United States. In Conclusion, Venezuela is struggling in food and health care because of their bad Leader Nicolas Maduro. People are dying faster and families are starving because they don't have food. This is a huge crisis, this was one of the wealthiest countries but now is the one leaving in poverty, people are eating pets and birds which is not usual. President Donald Trump and other leaders in Latin America for example Mexico they are trying their best to help out venezuela because everyone is supposed to be treated the same way, and in a way people in America can be helping out by donating one dollar which to them means a lot .

Pros Cons of the Death Penalty and Current Status by Country

Capital punishment also dubbed the death penalty, is the planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person. Passions in the United States are sharply divided and run equally strong among both supporters and protesters of the death penalty. Quotations from Both Sides Arguing against capital punishment, Amnesty International believes: The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment.​ Arguing for capital punishment, the Clark County, Indiana, prosecuting attorney writes: There are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with ​aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self-defense to protect the innocent.​ And Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, wrote: The death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing. Death Penalty in the United States The death penalty has not always been practiced in the United States, although Time magazine estimated that in this country, more than 15,700 people have been legally executed since 1700. The Depression-era 1930s, which saw a historic peak in executions, was followed by a dramatic decrease in the 1950s and 1960s. No executions occurred in the United States between 1967 and 1976.In 1972, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the death penalty and converted the death sentences of hundreds of death row inmates to life in prison.In 1976, another Supreme Court ruling found capital punishment to be constitutional. Since 1976, almost 1,500 people have been executed in the United States. Latest Developments The vast majority of democratic countries in Europe and Latin America have abolished capital punishment over the last 50 years, but the United States, most democracies in Asia, and almost all totalitarian governments retain it. Crimes that carry the death penalty vary greatly worldwide, from treason and murder to theft. In militaries around the world, courts-martial have sentenced capital punishments also for cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny. Per Amnesty Internationals 2017 death penalty annual report, Amnesty International recorded at least  993 executions  in  23 countries  in 2017, down by 4% from 2016 (1,032 executions) and 39% from 2015 (when the organization reported 1,634 executions, the highest number since 1989). However, those statistics do not include China, known as the worlds top executioner, because the use of the death penalty is a state secret. Countries in the table below with a plus sign () indicate that there were executions, but numbers were not received by Amnesty International. Executions in 2017, by Country China: Iran: 507Saudi Arabia: 146Iraq: 125Pakistan: 60Egypt: 35Somalia: 24United States: 23Jordan: 15Vietnam: North Korea: All other: 58Source: Amnesty International As of 2018, capital punishment in the United States is officially sanctioned by 31 states, as well as by the federal government. Each state with legalized capital punishment has different laws regarding its methods, age limits, and crimes that qualify. From 1976 through October 2018, 1,483 felons were executed in the United States, distributed among the states as follows: Executions from 1976–October 2018, by State Texas: 555  Virginia: 113Oklahoma: 112Florida: 96Missouri: 87Georgia: 72Alabama: 63Ohio: 56North Carolina: 43South Carolina: 43Louisiana: 28Arkansas: 31All others: 184 Source: Death Penalty Information Center States and U.S. territories with no current death penalty statute are Alaska (abolished in 1957), Connecticut (2012), Delaware (2016), Hawaii (1957), Illinois (2011), Iowa (1965), Maine (1887), Maryland (2013), Massachusetts (1984), Michigan (1846), Minnesota (1911), New Jersey (2007), New Mexico (2009), New York (2007), North Dakota  (1973), Rhode Island (1984), Vermont (1964), West Virginia (1965), Wisconsin (1853), District of Columbia (1981), American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Source: Death Penalty Information Center The Moral Conflict: Tookie Williams The case of Stanley Tookie Williams illustrates the moral complexities of the death penalty. Williams, an author and Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes nominee who was put to death on December 13, 2005, by lethal injection by the state of California, brought capital punishment back into prominent public debate. Williams was convicted of four murders committed in 1979 and sentenced to death. Williams professed innocence of these crimes. He was also co-founder of the Crips, a deadly and powerful Los Angeles–based street gang responsible for hundreds of murders. About five years after incarceration, Williams underwent a religious conversion and, as a result, wrote many books and created programs to promote peace and to fight gangs and gang violence. He was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and four times for the Nobel Literature Prize. Williams admitted his life of crime and violence, which was followed by genuine redemption and a life of unusually good works. The circumstantial evidence against Williams left little doubt that he committed the four murders, despite last-minute claims by supporters. There also existed no doubt that Williams posed no further threat to society and would contribute considerable good. His case forced public reflection on the purpose of the death penalty: Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm?Is the purpose to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation?Is the purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder?Is the purpose of the death penalty to punish the criminal?Is the purpose of the death penalty to take retribution on behalf of the victim? Should Stanley Tookie Williams have been executed by the state of California? Exorbitant Costs The  New York Times  penned in its  Ã‚  op-ed High Cost of Death Row: To the many excellent reasons to abolish the death penalty—it’s immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately—we can add one more. It’s an economic drain on governments with already badly depleted budgets.It is far from a national trend, but some legislators have begun to have second thoughts about the high cost of death row. (September 28, 2009) In a 2016 California had the unique situation of having two ballot measures up for  a vote  that purported would save taxpayers millions of dollars per year: one to speed up existing executions (Proposition 66) and one to convert all death penalty convictions to life without parole (Proposition 62). Proposition 62 failed in that election, and Proposition 66 narrowly passed.   Arguments For and Against Arguments commonly made for supporting the death penalty are: To serve as  an example  to other would-be criminals, to deter them from committing murder or terrorist acts.To punish the criminal for his/her act.To obtain retribution on behalf of the victims. Arguments commonly made to abolish the death penalty are: Death constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the  U.S. Constitution. Also, the various means used by the state to kill a criminal are cruel.The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state.A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.Killing human life is morally wrong under all circumstances. Some faith groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, oppose the death penalty as not being pro-life. Countries that Retain the Death Penalty   As of 2017 per Amnesty International, 53 countries, representing about one-third of all countries worldwide, retain the death penalty for ordinary capital crimes, including the United States, plus: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, China, Comoros,  Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt,  Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis,  Saint Lucia,  Saint Vincent  and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,  Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand,  Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,  United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe. The United States is the only westernized democracy, and one of the few democracies worldwide, to not have abolished the death penalty. Countries That Abolished the Death Penalty As of 2017 per Amnesty International, 142 countries, representing two-thirds of all countries worldwide, have abolished the death penalty on moral grounds, including: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada,  Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands,  Costa Rica, Cote DIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus,  Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti,  Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Holy See (Vatican City), Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta,  Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands,  New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa,  San Marino,  Sao Tome  and Principe, Senegal, Serbia (including Kosovo), Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia,  Solomon Islands,  South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey , Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine,  United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela. Some others have a moratorium on executions or are taking strides to abolish death penalty laws on the books.

Pacific Coast Migration Model Into the Americas

The Pacific Coast Migration Model is a theory concerning the original colonization of the Americas that proposes that people entering the continents followed the Pacific coastline, hunter-gatherer-fishers traveling in boats or along the shoreline and subsisting primarily on marine resources. The PCM model was first considered in detail by Knut Fladmark, in a 1979 article in American Antiquity which was simply amazing for its time. Fladmark argued against the Ice Free Corridor hypothesis, which proposes people entered North America through a narrow opening between two glacial ice sheets. The Ice Free Corridor was likely to have been blocked, argued Fladmark, and if the corridor was open at all, it would have been unpleasant to live and travel in. Fladmark proposed instead that a more suitable environment for human occupation and travel would have been possible along the Pacific coast, beginning along the edge of Beringia, and reaching the unglaciated shores of Oregon and California. Support for the Pacific Coast Migration Model The main hitch to the PCM model is the paucity of archaeological evidence for a Pacific coastal migration. The reason for that is fairly straightforward--given a rise in sea levels of 50 meters (~165 feet) or more since the Last Glacial Maximum, the coastlines along which the original colonists might have arrived, and the sites they may have left there, are out of present archaeological reach. However, a growing body of genetic and archaeological evidence does lend support to this theory. For example, evidence for seafaring in the Pacific Rim region begins in greater Australia, which was colonized by people in watercraft at least as long ago as 50,000 years. Maritime foodways were practiced by the Incipient Jomon of the Ryukyu Islands and southern Japan by 15,500 cal BP. Projectile points used by the Jomon were distinctively tanged, some with barbed shoulders: similar points are found throughout the New World. Finally, it is believed that the bottle gourd was domesticated in Asia and introduced into the New World, perhaps by colonizing sailors. Read more about the JomonRead about bottle gourd domestication Sanak Island: Redating Deglaciation of the Aleutians The earliest archaeological sites in the Americas—such as Monte Verde and Quebrada Jaguay—are located in South America and date to ~15,000 years ago. If the Pacific coast corridor was only truly navigable beginning around 15,000 years ago, that suggests that a full-out sprint along the Pacific coast of the Americas had to have occurred for those sites to be occupied so early. But new evidence from the Aleutian Islands suggests the sea coast corridor was opened at least 2,000 years longer ago than previously believed. In an August 2012 article in Quaternary Science Reviews, Misarti and colleagues report on pollen and climatic data that provide circumstantial evidence supporting the PCM, from Sanak Island in the Aleutian Archipelago. Sanak Island is a small (23x9 kilometers, or ~15x6 miles) dot about the midpoint of the Aleutians extending off Alaska, capped by a single volcano called Sanak Peak. The Aleutians would have been part--the highest part--of the landmass scholars call Beringia, when sea levels were 50 meters lower than they are today. Archaeological investigations on Sanak have documented more than 120 sites dated within the last 7,000 years—but nothing earlier. Misarti and colleagues placed 22 sediment core samples into the deposits of three lakes on Sanak Island. Using the presence of pollen from Artemisia (sagebrush), Ericaceae (heather), Cyperaceae (sedge), Salix (willow), and Poaceae (grasses), and directly tied to radiocarbon-dated deep lake sediments as an indicator of climate, the researchers found that the island, and surely its now-submerged coastal plains, was free of ice nearly 17,000 cal BP. Two thousand years seems at least a more reasonable period in which to expect people to move from Beringia southward to the Chilean coast, some 2,000 years (and 10,000 miles) later. That is circumstantial evidence, not unlike a trout in the milk. Sources Balter M. 2012. The Peopling of the Aleutians. Science 335:158-161. Erlandson JM, and Braje TJ. 2011. From Asia to the Americas by boat? Paleogeography, paleoecology, and stemmed points of the northwest Pacific. Quaternary International 239(1-2):28-37. Fladmark, K. R. 1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44(1):55-69. Gruhn, Ruth 1994 The Pacific Coast route of initial entry: An overview. In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas. Robson Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, eds. Pp. 249-256. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University. Misarti N, Finney BP, Jordan JW, Maschner HDG, Addison JA, Shapley MD, Krumhardt A, and Beget JE. 2012. Early retreat of the Alaska Peninsula Glacier Complex and the implications for coastal migrations of First Americans. Quaternary Science Reviews 48(0):1-6.