Increased thirst may indicate disturbances in the functioning of the hypothalamus and pituitary gland. This condition is called diabetes insipidus - where the kidneys lose the ability to filter water and concentrate urine.
Dr. Kamila Tapieva, an endocrinologist and preventive medicine specialist, said in an interview with Gazeta news: “This condition is linked to a deficiency or defect in the effect of the hormone vasopressin on the kidneys, which is secreted by the hypothalamus, accumulates in the posterior lobe of the pituitary gland, and controls the level of water in the body.” It regulates the amount of it excreted by the kidneys.
According to her, there are many reasons for a deficiency or defect in the action of vasopressin. These include genetic disorders, brain injuries, surgical intervention, pituitary tumors, cerebrovascular disease, kidney disease, and some types of infections.
She says: “When vasopressin does not affect the required receptors, the person feels very thirsty and drinks a lot of fluids (from 3 to 18 liters per day, and sometimes this amount reaches 20-30 liters). A large amount of unconcentrated urine is formed. The severity of the symptoms depends on The degree of hormone deficiency. If the disease is severe or not treated, it leads to an imbalance of water and electrolytes, and swelling and cramps occur.”
The doctor points out that in some cases, extreme thirst may indicate other serious diseases.
She says: “Increased thirst may be a symptom of blood loss, diabetes, kidney and liver disease, poisoning due to viral diseases or food poisoning, frequent vomiting, diarrhea, brain injuries and burns. It may also be due to psychological disorders.”
Ethical dilemmas of preventing the next pandemic
A team of researchers has identified a way to reduce the impact of infectious diseases like Covid-19, but the findings may pose an ethical dilemma for decision and policy makers.
Study leader Joelle Miller, an associate professor of mathematics and statistics at La Trobe University in Australia, revealed that isolating the group of individuals most at risk for a long period, while boosting infection levels in other groups in order to reach herd immunity, could be the best way to protect groups at risk.
The researchers ran simulations of different scenarios to determine the best results for an entire population, using data from a survey in the Netherlands that determined how often people of different age groups contacted each other.
They found that a major epidemic would occur if the isolation strategy did not sufficiently reduce contact. However, if the strategy significantly reduces contact, there will be a modest epidemic, and once it is deactivated, many individuals will remain susceptible and a second wave will occur.
But increasing the levels of exposure of one group to a disease may create an ethical dilemma, and lower groups in society may become vulnerable to infection at higher rates.
“Setting aside the question of whether such a strategy is logistically feasible, this is a fairly optimal intervention,” Miller said. “However, there are significant ethical challenges, as younger age groups become worse off.” Our goal in this paper is not "Advocating such a policy, even highlighting some of the ethical dilemmas that arise from similar intervention strategies."
She explained that this is the first study to look at the ethical implications of increasing infections as a strategy to achieve optimal results, without using vaccines.
The paper, titled “An ethical dilemma arises from optimizing interventions to address epidemics in heterogeneous populations,” was published in the journal The Royal Society Interface.
Tags:
health