STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Vernon JONES, II.
Michael F. Easley, Atty. Gen. by Michael S. Fox, Associate Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, Robert Vernon Jones, II, was indicted for first-degree murder by a Johnston County Grand Jury on 9 September 1991. He was tried capitally at the 27 July 1992 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Johnston County. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of firstdegree murder. At the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. The defendant appealed to this Court as a matter of right from the judgment of the trial court sentencing him to life imprisonment for firstdegree murder. See N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a) (1989).
The evidence presented at the defendant's trial tended to show the following. The defendant *24 testified that he was 24 years old and was a construction worker. He had a ninth grade education. Becky Murray, the victim, first left home in 1989 to live with her sister in the J S & J Trailer Park. The defendant met Becky in November of 1990 while she was living with her sister. They began dating in November. In March or April of the following year, Becky moved in with the defendant in the same trailer park. At some point, Becky and the defendant moved to the Bell Hope Trailer Park.
On 10 August 1991, David Purdue spent most of the day with the defendant and Becky. They spent much of the day in several bars drinking and playing pool. He then took the defendant and Becky to their mobile home in the Bell Hope Trailer Park and left them.
Karen Eddy lived next door to the defendant and Becky. At about 11:30 p.m. on the evening of 10 August 1991, she saw David Purdue bring the defendant and Becky to their mobile home. Later, the defendant woke her by beating on her bedroom window asking for help. When Karen opened the door to her mobile home, she saw the defendant holding Becky around the waist. The defendant carried Becky in and put her on the kitchen floor. Karen observed that Becky was unconscious and had swollen eyes and a swollen jaw. Both of her lips were "busted." Karen also noticed marks on Becky's neck and noticed that Becky's hair was wet. Karen sent her boyfriend to get his truck so that someone could take Becky and the defendant to the hospital. The defendant told Karen that he and Becky had gotten into an argument and he had hit her. In response to Karen's question as to what had made Becky pass out, the defendant replied he had hit her in the throat. Karen checked Becky's pulse at her mobile home and determined that she was alive. By the time they got to the hospital, she was not breathing. At the hospital, Karen heard the defendant tell a nurse that Becky had gotten into a fight at a party. The defendant also told Karen that he had "roundhoused" Becky.
Linda Kimbrough drove Karen, Becky and the defendant to the hospital that evening.
Linda had been awakened by Karen's boyfriend. When she arrived at Karen's trailer, she observed Karen and the defendant attempting to resuscitate Becky. Linda noticed that Becky sounded as though she was choking on something. Linda heard the defendant say at the hospital that he had "backhanded" and "roundkicked" Becky.
Linda Thornton was the Supervising Emergency Room Nurse at Johnston Memorial Hospital on 11 August 1991 when Becky was brought there. She noticed that Becky was not breathing and that her blood pressure was very low. Becky was taken by helicopter to Duke Hospital. She never regained consciousness and died at 1:45 p.m. on 11 August 1991.
Dr. Karen Chancellor was the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Becky's body for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Dr. Chancellor concluded from hemorrhaging in the victim's eyeballs, bruises and abrasions to the neck, and a fracture to the hyoid bone, that the cause of the victim's death had been manual strangulation.
During the course of the trial, other evidence was presented tending to show that on several occasions the defendant had attacked Becky and seriously injured her. There was also evidence that the defendant had been charged with assault on at least two prior occasions.
By an assignment of error, the defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor misstated the definition of the phrase "reasonable doubt" and thereby violated his due process rights. The defendant contends that the prosecutor's argument to the jury included a definition of "reasonable doubt" similar to definitions which have been held to be error when given as a part of a trial court's jury instructions. He argues that this denied him due process and that he is entitled to a new trial as a result.
Before we go any further, though, let me speak with you about something you're going to have to deal with in the jury room, and that's your decision standard. *25 In the State of North Carolina, it's called beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me read you what the Supreme Court of this state has had to say about it. It said: "A reasonable doubt is not a vain, imaginary, or fanciful doubt, but it is a sane, rational doubt. Where it is said the jury must be satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it must be fully satisfied or entirely convinced or satisfied to a moral certainty. Now, a reasonable doubt is an honest, substantial misgiving generated by the insufficiency of the proof, an insufficiency which fails to convince your judgment and conscience and satisfy your reason as to the guilt of the accused. It is not a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel or by your own ingenuity not legitimately warranted by the testimony, or one born of merciful inclination or disposition to permit the defendant to escape the penalty of the law, or one prompted by sympathy for him or those connected with him." All this is saying is that your decision must be based on common sense and reason. In other words, you use your common sense in deciding whether or not there is a reason, something you can identify, to doubt that the defendant is guilty. Now, the other language that you may hear emphasized, and which you, in fact, heard in the definition, includes "fully satisfied," "entirely satisfied," or "satisfied to a moral certainty." I tell you that none of this language, none of it at all, raises the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It just doesn't do it. These words do not mean that you must be satisfied beyond all doubt, beyond any doubt, or beyond a shadow of a doubt. Again, I remind you that your doubt must arise out of common sense and be based on a reason, something you can identify. And when you think about it, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt makes common sense, because to require the State to prove anything to you beyond all doubt, any doubt, or shadow of a doubt would be well nigh impossible. .... Now, about being fully satisfied or entirely convinced or satisfied to a moral certainty, simply means, again using your common sense in evaluating the evidence, you have no reason to doubt the defendant is guilty. Now, a moral certainty is simply one based on our own innate sense of what is right or wrong, because to be sure it would be wrong to convict someone if you have reason to believe they were not guilty.
Assuming arguendo that the definition of "reasonable doubt" given by the prosecutor contained error, the defendant is still entitled to no relief.
Both the Supreme Court of the United States and this Court have held that a jury instruction defining "reasonable doubt" which requires an improperly high degree of doubt for acquittal offends due process. Victor v. Nebraska, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1239, 127 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1994); Sullivan v. Louisiana, ___ U.S.___, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993); Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S. Ct. 328, 112 L. Ed. 2d 339 (1990); State v. Williams, 334 N.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 588 (1993), judgment vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1365, 128 L. Ed. 2d 42 (1994); State v. Bryant, 334 N.C. 333, 432 S.E.2d 291 (1993), judgment vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1365, 128 L. Ed. 2d 42 (1994); State v. Montgomery, 331 N.C. 559, 417 S.E.2d 742 (1992). However, such cases only dealt with definitions given by the trial court to the jury. They are not controlling here, where the statements complained of were made by the prosecutor during jury arguments.
The State must prove to you that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or a lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt.
This was a correct statement of the law by the trial court. State v. Hudson, 331 N.C. 122, 140, 415 S.E.2d 732, 742 (1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 983, 122 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1993); N.C.P.I. Crim. 101.10 (1974); see Victor,___ U.S. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 1243, 127 L. Ed. 2d at 590.
We have assumed arguendo for purposes of this case that the prosecutor's definition of "reasonable doubt" complained of by the defendant was erroneous to the extent that it required an improperly high degree of doubt for acquittal. Nevertheless, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to immediately correct the prosecutor's erroneous definition where, as here, the trial court followed the complained-of argument of the prosecutor with proper instructions correctly defining the term "reasonable doubt." In this context, any error of the prosecutor in defining the term "reasonable doubt" could not have denied the defendant due process and did not require a new trial. See State v. Anderson, 322 N.C. 22, 38, 366 S.E.2d 459, 470 (1988); State v. Gladden, 315 N.C. 398, 426, 340 S.E.2d 673, 690-91, cert, denied, 479 U.S. 870, 107 S. Ct. 241, 93 L. Ed. 2d 166 (1986); State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 359, 307 S.E.2d 304, 325 (1983); State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 681, 695-96, 228 S.E.2d 437, 445 (1976); see also Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 106 S. Ct. 2464, 91 L. Ed. 2d 144 (standard to be applied to prosecutorial misconduct), reh'g denied, 478 U.S. 1036, 107 S. Ct. 24, 92 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1986); Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S. Ct. 1868, 40 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1974) (same); State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 186, 443 S.E.2d 14, 39 (1994) (same). This assignment of error is overruled.
By his next assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in preventing his counsel from asking jurors questions, solely because the trial court had previously asked the same or similar questions. The defendant contends that this violated N.C.G.S. § 15A-1214(c) and entitles him to a new trial. Though we conclude that the trial court erred in this regard, we also conclude that the defendant has not suffered any resulting prejudice.
The trial court announced at the beginning of jury selection that it would not permit counsel for either side to ask any question of a prospective juror that the juror had been asked previously and had answered. Even though the defendant did not object, this assignment of error is reviewable. When a trial court acts contrary to a statutory mandate, the right to appeal the court's action is preserved, notwithstanding the failure of the appealing party to object at trial. See State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28, 331 S.E.2d 652 (1985); State v. Bryant, 189 N.C. 112, 126 S.E. 107 (1925).
The prosecutor and the defense counsel, or the defendant if not represented by counsel, may personally question prospective jurors individually concerning their fitness and competency to serve as jurors in the case to determine whether there is a basis for a challenge for cause or whether to exercise a peremptory challenge. The prosecution or defense is not foreclosed from asking a question merely because the court has previously asked the same or similar question.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1214(c) (1988). The defendant contends that the trial court's ruling prohibited him from taking advantage of the right expressly given by this statute and constituted error. We agree.
This Court has held that "[t]his statutory right to voir dire examination serves a double purpose, first, to determine whether a basis for challenge for cause exists, and second, to enable counsel to intelligently exercise *27 peremptory challenges." State v. Soyars, 332 N.C. 47, 56, 418 S.E.2d 480, 486 (1992). The extent and manner of that inquiry, however, rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. "Therefore, defendant must show prejudice, as well as a clear abuse of discretion, to establish reversible error." State v. Syriani 333 N.C. 350, 372, 428 S.E.2d 118, 129, cert, denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 392, 126 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1993), reh'g denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 745, 126 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1994).
The trial court's ruling in this case was contrary to the language and intent of the statute. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1214 prohibits the trial court from preventing the prosecution or defense from asking a question of a prospective juror merely because the question has been previously asked by the court. The statute does not, however, entitle either the prosecution or the defense to ask improper or repetitious questions; nor does it prohibit the trial court, in its discretion, from sustaining objections to such questions. The trial court is expected to exercise its discretion in determining whether to permit such questions. The trial court in this case, however, ruled from the outset that no questions would be allowed if they had been previously asked of and answered by the juror in question. We conclude that the trial court erred in this regard since its ruling had the effect of preventing the defendant from asking questions solely because jurors had previously been asked the same questions. This ruling was contrary to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1214(c).
Having determined the trial court's action to have been contrary to the statute, we must next determine its prejudicial effect, if any, on the defendant's trial. Because the defendant was not foreclosed from obtaining any information he sought, we conclude that the statutory violation in this case was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial.
The trial court's error in this case does not constitute denial of a constitutional right but rather a right granted by statute. The standard for determining prejudicial error is, therefore, governed by N.C.G.S. § 151443(a), and the determinative issue is whether "there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises." N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (1988).
State v. Conner, 335 N.C. 618, 630, 440 S.E.2d 826, 833 (1994). After reviewing the entire transcript of the selection of the jury, we are unable to identify, and defendant has failed to point out, any possible prejudice resulting from the trial court's ruling. The transcript reveals that only once was counsel specifically prevented from asking a question of a potential juror. The defendant was not allowed to ask a juror, "Do you understand it's the prosecutor's burden to prove the defendant guilty, and they must do that beyond a reasonable doubt?" Five questions later, the juror was asked, "Would you hold the prosecutor to his burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt?" The juror answered "Yes, sir." Nothing in the record tends to show that a different result might have been reached at trial, absent the trial court's ruling which is the subject of this assignment of error. Therefore, we conclude that it did not prejudice the defendant. Conner, 335 N.C. at 630, 440 S.E.2d at 833; N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (1988).
The only questions prohibited by the trial court's ruling were ones previously asked and answered. The action of the trial court did not deprive the defendant of his right to complete information about each prospective juror concerning her or his fitness and competency to serve as a juror. The record indicates that on many occasions, counsel were allowed to ask jurors questions substantially similar to, or completely repetitious of, questions previously asked the same jurors by the trial court. For these reasons, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's error resulted in prejudice entitling him to a new trial. This assignment of error is overruled.
Having carefully reviewed the record and each of defendant's assignments of error, we hold that defendant received a fair trial free of prejudicial error.


I Think Solutions have expertise in converting hardcopy PDFs to word files. We also provide digital conversion of the text from the native formats such as Microsoft Word and Excel. We offer reliable and cost-effective solutions for repurposing the complete content and maximizing its e-publishing potential. We are considered as the leading PDF to Word Conversion Company in India.
Apart from this we also provide you a number of Data Capture Solutions. All businesses should know how to handle and process large quantities of structured, semi-structured and unstructured data in the form of hardcopy. If you are keeping everything in the form of hardcopy it will hinder your business and organization in one or more ways. It is hard to search for the data and retrieving the data back.
I Think Solutions we offer our clients a wide range of Data Capture Services; both automated and manual, and help them in capturing the data from their paper documents in a retrievable digital format. We feel proud to say that we can be your versatile partners and can adapt our services in accordance to the needs of a wide range of industry verticals. Our Manual Data Capturing professionals can help you in entering all types of data either textual or numeric easily. We offer our automated Data Capturing Services using the most advanced ICR, OCR, IMR and other Barcode technologies.
We capture the informative and the necessary data first. After collecting the useful data the conversion takes place. We offer Data Capture Solutions at competitive prices and quality services that are ideally suited for large volume applications.
Our business developers can provide you customized packages that fit into your pocket size well. We provide you a complete range of Digital Conversion Services that addresses all your prepress requirements and content conversion needs.


Collecting ferns and moss was quite the fashion for the Victorians, so much so that one might have called it an obsession. Fern enthusiasts traded and promenaded their fantastical ferns, going as far as making treks out to the wild to collect rare specimens. An over-enthusiastic, fern-seeker even tumbled to her death while reaching for an elusive cliff-dwelling specimen.
Sarah Whittingham traces this phenomenon in her glossy book "Fern Fever: The Story of Pteridomania." Jam packed with lush photos of ferneries, fern grotto gardens, and decorative arts graced with fern fronds, she forms an overwhelming set of evidence for the Victorian fern fever, or pteridomania.
Interestingly enough, young women embraced fern fever the most avidly of all Victorians. Much like the pop star-crazed tweens of today, Victorian teens were engrossed in trading fern specimen collector cards and begging their parents to install fern grottoes in their basements. Even the daughter of novelist Charles Dickens developed mild pteriodomania.
"After careful cross examining my daughter . . . I do NOT believe her to be worthy of the fernery . . . When I ask her where she would have the fernery and what she would do with it, the witness falters, turns pale, becomes confused, and says: 'Perhaps it would be better not to have it at all."
"Fern Fever: The Story of Pteridomania"
Gosh, Dickens. Maybe if you hadn't bullied your daughter over it you could have both enjoyed an entrancing fern grotto. Of course the ferns did hold a sort of "fantastical" fascination for many Victorians. Some enthusiasts connected ferns with faeries and fantasy, while others touted it as a healthy study of natural science and a great family activity to fern hunt in the countryside on a weekend. Clever folks published lucrative fern field guides; stuffy folk formed formal fern societies and journals.
Incidentally, all these ferns necessitated all sorts of fern cases, aquariums, terrariums and other methods of constructing suitable environments for the precious and often costly fern specimens. I share a few copies of the advertisements for Victorian fern cases from the book.


ternga.me 9 out of 10 based on 700 ratings. 600 user reviews.
¿ES MI TELEFONO ANDROID COMPATIBLE CON EL OTG?
Learn how to make your own on the go (OTG) USB cable for pretty cheep or free if you have the supplies sitting around your house.
Micro USB to USB mother OTG adapter cable It can not only be used for OTG function is a digital. Product patibility: Micro V8 OTG Phone Tablet.
List of OTG Supported Devices ... please double check with your devices' manufactueres for USB OTG compatibility. ... OTG USB flash drive and USB cable all in one.


Prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death in men, with men having a one in six chance that they will get prostate cancer in their lifetime. While prostate cancer can be treated with surgery, a new treatment similar to radiation is being tested that may be able to more effectively target proteins on the surface of prostate tumors, providing hope even for patients with advanced prostate cancer.
Human prostate cancer cells can be recognized by overexpression of some proteins on their surface. The abundance of certain proteins provides a way to target these cancer cells by using antibodies. The antibodies will be binded to the isotope 212-lead, which is an altered form of the common element lead. When this antibody is injected into a patient's veins, it will bind to a tumor's surface and release particles and radiation that will destroy only the tumor cells.
Researchers in Zhongyun Dong's laboratory at the University of Cincinnati are getting ready to test this new agent over the course of this year. They will measure how toxic and effective the treatment is in slowing down or blocking cancer cell growth. Then, the treatment will be used in clinical trials with patients with advanced prostate cancer.
When parachuting out of a plane into combat, there are two competing considerations at play. The soldier needs to reach the ground as quickly as possible (spending as little time in the air as an easy target for enemy fire as possible) without being injured on landing.
This first goal means that military parachutes do not provide the softest possible landings, and poor landing technique often leads to injuries. What happens when you add over 100lbs. of body armor, weaponry, ammunitions, communications equipment, and other combat gear to this equation?
A study carried out in January of 2010 at the University of Pittsburgh has demonstrated that the extra weight from combat equipment can alter soldiers' landing mechanics and lead to increased incidence of musculoskeletal injury.
In this study, researchers compared the kinetics (the relationship between the motion of a body and the forces acting on it) of the landings of 70 active duty Air Assault soldiers with and without equipment. High-speed cameras and computer software were used to capture and analyze the soldiers' landing biomechanics under the two conditions, and force plates were used to measure vertical ground reaction forces (force exerted by the ground on a body in contact with it) of the landings.
Soldiers performed two-legged drop landings from a height of less than two ft. with body armor, helmet, and rifle, weighing a total of less than 40lbs. Real parachute landings are more similar to dropping from a height of ten feet without a chute, and real weight of combat gear exceeds 100lbs. Even though experimental forces were far less than those typically experienced by soldiers in training and combat, the additional weight was still observed to significantly alter soldiers' landings.
It was determined that with the additional weight, soldiers experienced significantly greater maximum knee flexion, significantly greater maximum ground reaction forces, and greater time between initial ground contact and these peak values.
These changes in landing biomechanics and force of impact increase the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in soldiers. Such injuries are a primary concern in the military. The Armed Forces Epidemiological Board reports that musculoskeletal injuries "impose a greater ongoing negative impact on the health and readiness of U.S. Armed forces than any other category of medical complaint during peacetime and combat." According to records, 58% of hospitalization cases in 2005 in the Navy were due to musculoskeletal injuries. These types of injuries result in significant amounts of lost duty time and can often be long-lasting and difficult to make a full recovery from, so prevention is crucial.
While jumping into combat without equipment is obviously not an option, proper strengthening and conditioning of the lower extremities, incremental increases in the weight with which soldiers train, and emphasis on proper landing technique can help mitigate the increased risk of injury associated with the weight of combat gear.
A recent study showed that exposure to low levels of antibiotics increased mutations in bacteria hundreds of times more than normal, making the creation of drug-resistant bacteria more likely. A drug under development by Radnor, PA-based PolyMedix, Inc. shows promise for addressing the serious threat of drug resistance by mimicking the human body's defenses.
If you don't take your prescription antibiotics as your doctor advises, then listen up. Just last week (February 12) a paper published in the journal Molecular Cell described how exposure to low levels of antibiotics increased mutations in bacteria hundreds of times more than normal, making the creation of drug-resistant bacteria more likely. A drug currently under development by Radnor, PA-based PolyMedix, Inc., however, shows promise for addressing the serious threat of drug resistance by mimicking the human body's defenses.
Drug resistance has been a growing health concern for decades now since the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s, the first available antibiotic of its kind. Drug resistance occurs because of bacteria's natural ability to evolve through mutations it incurs as it reproduces. As it turns out, researchers have found that low antibiotic dosages are triggers for increasing the rate at which bacteria mutate, thus, increasing the likelihood of drug resistance.
"Upping the antibiotic dosage may be a viable solution but not the ultimate one," adds Korczak. Driven by science conducted at the University of Pennsylvania, PolyMedix is investigating a new type of antibiotic drug that works by imitating the human immune system.
PolyMedix's investigational antibiotic agent, called PMX-30063, is the first of its kind with a new approach to address the serious health implications of drug resistance by mimicking host defense protiens. Unlike most antibiotics, host defense proteins work fundamentally different. Rather than crossing the bacterial membrane to find a target like most antibiotics, they selectively target the cell membranes integrity by poking holes into it. This diminishes the bacteria's ability to remain intact and the bacteria and its internal components become degraded (See video demonstration by clicking on the image above).
To study the ability of bacteria to resist an antibiotic drug, a laboratory experimental method known as "serial passage" is used by intentionally trying to create bacterial drug resistance. Using this experiment, PolyMedix has shown that resistance did not appear to its compounds in contrast to traditional antibiotics.
So far, data from two Phase I clinical studies demonstrate that the compound is safe and well-tolerated. PolyMedix is on schedule to complete the third and final segment of the ongoing Phase 1 study with PMX-30063 early this year and commence Phase 2 studies later this year.
PolyMedix has received 9 grants and research contracts from the National Institutes of Health and branches of the military to help support the development of its antibiotic compounds.
To view the press release associated with this piece, please click here.
To learn more about PolyMedix, Inc., please visit www.polymedix.com.
This past winter, I had the opportunity to work as what you would call, a nurse's assistant. Basically, I cleaned hospital beds. But during this glamorous experience I was able to see nurses and doctors interact with patients before and after surgery. One of the key issues that repeatedly came up was anesthesia. Patients would be asked questions such as "are you allergic to any medications?" and "have you had any reactions to anesthesia before?" before entering surgery. Afterwards, their vitals would be closely monitored to ensure they return to their normal state after the anesthesia wore off.
Anesthesia is essential for its frequent use in otherwise painful surgical and medical procedures. However, anesthesia is not without its flaws. While anesthesia helps to achieve nerve blocks that can eliminate the feeling of pain, it often affects and impairs motor function. This is why patients are often unconscious, immobile, and sometimes unable to breathe on their own. A recent press release reports on a study conducted by a group of researches at the Children's Hospital Boston. The researchers, led by Daniel Kohane, MD, PhD, of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Children's were originally studying surfactants, naturally-occurring agents that allow drugs to travel more easily through tissue, that would prolong the effects of anesthesia. However, to the surprise of the researchers, they discovered a potential new approach to anesthesia that would prolong the effects of anesthesia without causing a motor block.
While testing three types of surfactants along with anesthetics, the researchers found that sensory block in rats' nerves were lengthened for up to 7 hours or more, but in many cases the rats did not experience motor impairment or experienced it for a very short duration. What's next is figuring out the mechanism by which this approach works, and looking at the effects of other drugs and chemicals that may be used in anesthesia. If this approach proves to work on humans, it would have a monumental impact on the fields of anesthesia and medicine. From allowing women in labor to receive anesthesia while giving birth, to relieving individuals with musculoskeletal disorders from pain while allowing for the maintenance of mobility, this anesthetic approach would bridge the gap between relief of pain and motor ability.
Anesthesia at the Children's Hospital Boston.