We all enjoy a good slushie every now and then. While they do not add any great nutritional value to our meal, they are a delightful snack made with shredded ice and sugar. To make them more accessible to people who cannot or do not wish to have sugar, there are many sugar free options to pick from. However, a recent study has revealed that sugar-free slushies containing glycerol, which is a sugar alcohol used to maintain their icy texture, can cause severe health problems in young children. The study was published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, it explains that having these sugar free slushies can lead to children having a condition called "glycerol intoxication syndrome". In this condition there is a rapid drop in blood sugar, reduced consciousness, and a buildup of acid in the blood.

Rapid Onset of Symptoms

Kids who drank slushies with glycerol got sick very quickly. Within an hour, they started showing serious symptoms. Their blood sugar would plummet, sometimes dangerously low. Many became confused or lost consciousness, and some even had seizures. Doctors studied 21 children who got sick from these drinks between 2018 and 2024. Most of these kids were very young, seven years old or younger. By the time they got to the hospital, many were in bad shape, either unconscious or barely awake. This quick reaction time makes it especially scary, as parents might not realize the slushy is the cause right away. It's important to recognize these signs fast.

Why is Glycerol Harmful?

According to WebMD Glycerol is a type of naturally occurring alcohol, and it's used in lots of food products. You might find it in protein bars, diet foods, and even sugar-free candies. In slushies, it plays a key role in keeping the drink icy. Usually, slushies use tons of sugar to stop them from freezing completely. But because people are trying to cut back on sugar, companies are using glycerol instead. This is especially true in places with "sugar taxes," where sugary drinks cost more. So, to make sugar-free versions, they add glycerol. This switch means more kids are being exposed to this ingredient, which can be harmful to them.

What Does Glycerol Damage Children's Health?

The study explains that little kids are more at risk from glycerol because their bodies are still growing and developing. Their tiny bodies and young metabolisms might not be able to handle glycerol as well as adults' bodies can. This means that even a small amount can cause a big problem. Also, the amount of glycerol in a slushy can vary, and it's hard to know exactly how much is safe. Factors like how fast they drink it, if they've eaten recently, or if they've been exercising can also make a difference. Even the standard size of a slushy drink can be too much for a small child. This makes it hard to give a safe dose.

Health authorities in the UK and Ireland have already started warning about glycerol in slushies. They suggest that kids under four shouldn't have them at all, and older kids should only have one at most. But doctors are worried that these warnings might not be enough. They point out that it's hard to know how much glycerol is actually in each drink, making it difficult to give safe advice. Parents are being told to be very careful and consider avoiding these drinks altogether for young children. In the US, glycerol is approved for use in food, but parents should still be aware of the potential risks. More research is needed to understand the full impact.

As we observe World Sleep Day today, under the theme “Sleep Well, Live Better”, we find ourselves at a digital crossroads. While we have never been more aware of the benefits of eight hours’ sleep, we have also never been more tempted to sacrifice that, like we are today.

Despite our pursuit of better sleep, modern-day lifestyles with late nights have trapped us in a loop of digital indulgence. The main culprit behind this is the rise of the Over-The-Top (OTT) streaming platforms, which contribute to binge watching, followed closely by constant scrolling on social media. We are sacrificing restorative sleep for the lure of just one more episode, not realizing that the biological toll is higher than we think.

The Allure Of Just One More Episode

Binge-watching is not just a matter of lack of willpower; it is actually a carefully crafted psychological hook. The OTT platforms are designed to ignore our stop signals through features such as auto-play and cliffhanger storylines, which make us want to watch more.

When we decide to watch a particular show at 11:00 PM, we invariably find ourselves glued to the screen even at 2:00 AM, which harms our sleep cycle not only for that day, but also our work performance the next day.

This is actually known as Revenge Bedtime Procrastination, where people who have very little control over their lives during the daytime refuse to go to bed early in a bid to reclaim some freedom during the late hours of the night. However, this is actually an illusion that works to deliberately destroy our circadian rhythm, which in the long term is very harmful to our bodies.

The Biological Backlash

Our bodies operate on a delicate internal clock. When we expose ourselves to the blue light emitted by televisions, laptops, tablets, and smartphones, we suppress the production of melatonin, the hormone responsible for sleep.

Some of the ill-effects of this include:

1. Disrupted Sleep Cycles and Blue Light Blockage

The human brain doesn’t just turn off when we sleep; it cycles through specific stages, moving from light sleep to deep (Non-Rapid Eye Movement) and finally to REM.

Our OTT devices emit high-intensity blue light. This light hits the melanopsin-containing receptors in your retina, which send a direct signal to the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus—the brain’s master clock. This signal suppresses the pineal gland from releasing melatonin.

Melatonin is a natural hormone produced by the pineal gland in response to darkness, signaling the body to sleep and regulating the circadian rhythm.

Depriving yourself of this makes the brain emotionally brittle and unable to distinguish between a minor inconvenience and a genuine crisis the next day.

2. Cognitive Fog: The Failure of the Glymphatic System

Cognitive fog is the subjective feeling of a very real physiological backlog. Think of your brain as a high-performance engine that produces metabolic waste throughout the day. During deep sleep, the space between your neurons increases, allowing Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) to rush in and wash away metabolic waste products, such as beta-amyloid (the same protein linked to Alzheimer’s).

Sleep is also when the brain performs synaptic scaling. It weakens unimportant neural connections made during the day so that the important ones (learning and memory) can stand out. When you compromise your sleep cycle for OTT, the trash isn’t picked up.

Your synapses remain cluttered and noisy, leading to slower neural transmission speeds. This manifests as cognitive fog, characterized by problems in focusing and slow-motion thinking.

3. Physical Health Risks: Autonomic Dysregulation

The brain is the command center for your entire body’s physiology. Chronic sleep deprivation caused by late-night digital habits keeps the brain in a state of Hyperarousal. Staying awake late to watch stimulating content triggers the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis. This keeps your cortisol levels (the stress hormone) and norepinephrine abnormally high.

Over time, this chronic fight or flight state leads to structural changes in the brain’s vasculature. The persistent elevation in blood pressure (hypertension) and the metabolic shift toward obesity are direct results of a brain that is being forced to stay awake when it should be recharging.

Beyond OTT, doom-scrolling through social media feeds adds to the mental stimulation. The dopamine hits from the ‘likes’ and short-form videos keep the brain in a high state of arousal, making it nearly impossible to transition into a restful state.

Reclaiming the Night: Practical Solutions

However, to fully live by the motto of “Sleep Well, Live Better”, we need to change the way we think about sleep. Sleep is neither a luxury nor a waste of time; it is the key to efficiency in our tasks during our waking hours.

The solutions are simple, but need discipline:

• Digital Sunset: Just as the sun sets, so too should your digital devices. Try to turn off all OTT platforms and social media at least 60 minutes before bedtime. This will give your body the chance to produce melatonin naturally.

• The One-Episode Rule: If you absolutely have to watch something before going to bed, pick a show that has a definitive endpoint for the night. Turn off the auto-play feature on your streaming services to take back control of your viewing habits.

• Create a Sanctuary: Make the bedroom a screen-free zone. If your phone is your alarm clock, consider purchasing a traditional analog clock to take away the temptation of a quick scroll before drifting off to sleep.
• Mindful Transitioning: Swap out the blue light for low-stimulation activities. Reading a physical book will make your brain think, and you will feel tired after some time, which will lead to better sleep. Some gentle stretching or journaling can help your nervous system understand that the day is over.

Sleep Well, Live Better

This World Sleep Day, let us recognize that no plot twist in a thriller or no viral trend on social media is worth the degradation of our health by compromising on sleep.

The “miracles” we seek—success at work, family time, and personal growth—cannot be built on a foundation of exhaustion. We all need rest so that we can wake up with more energy the next day to achieve our life goals with dedication.

By choosing the pillow over the play button, we aren’t just going to sleep; we are choosing to live a more vibrant, focused, and healthier life.

Jane Fallon, Ricky Gervais’ longtime partner, recently opened up about being diagnosed with breast cancer. The producer of 20 Things To Do Before You’re 30, Fallon explained that her breast cancer was diagnosed during a routine mammogram in December.

“About a month ago I was diagnosed with breast cancer - very early stage thankfully & the prognosis is excellent. I had a routine mammogram a week before Christmas.” She explained that she had no symptoms however; it was her regular check-ups that helped the early diagnosis.

“I had no symptoms, but the brilliant radiographer spotted something iffy & sent me for further tests & eventually a biopsy” With biopsies and an MRI, her healthcare team located the “problem area” and now her surgery has been scheduled for next week.

Why Early Diagnosis Matter For Breast Cancer

According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), breast cancer screening is a proactive checkup used to find cancer before any physical signs or symptoms appear. While screening doesn’t prevent cancer, its goal is early detection, making the disease much easier to treat.

Since every person’s body and history are different, you and your doctor should engage in informed and shared decision-making. This means discussing the pros and cons to decide together if, and when, screening is right for you.

Also Read: Breast Cancer Patients Choosing Alternative Medicine Face Higher Death Risk | Women's Day

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (a group of national medical experts) provides guidelines based on the latest research:

Average Risk

Women aged 40 to 74 should generally get a mammogram every two years.

High Risk

If you have a family history or other risk factors, your doctor may recommend a different schedule or additional tests.

How Is Breast Cancer Screening Done?

There are two main imaging tools used to look for breast cancer:

Mammogram

This is a specialized X-ray and remains the "gold standard" for most women. It can spot tumors long before they can be felt, significantly lowering the risk of dying from the disease.

Breast MRI

This uses magnets and radio waves for a detailed image. It is typically reserved for women at high risk and is used alongside a mammogram, rather than instead of one.

Also Read: Breast Cancer To Reach Over 3.5 Mn By 2050, Deaths To Surge 44% Predicts Lancet Study

Breast Cancer Awareness Starts At Home

Staying informed about your body through physical checks is a key part of proactive health. A clinical breast exam involves a healthcare professional using their hands to feel for any unusual lumps or changes in texture.

Parallel to this is breast self-awareness, which encourages you to become familiar with the normal look and feel of your breasts. While neither practice is currently proven to lower the overall risk of death from cancer, they remain vital for identifying immediate concerns like pain or size changes.

Navigating healthcare requires a careful balance of pros and cons, which is why informed and shared decision-making is so important. Every screening test involves a trade-off; while the goal is protection, there is always a possibility of encountering false positives or overdiagnosis.

What Are The Benefits of Early Screening?

The primary advantage of regular breast cancer screening is the ability to achieve early intervention.

When cancer is detected in its earliest stages, often long before a physical lump can be felt, it is typically much smaller and confined to a localized area.

This makes the disease significantly easier to treat and often allows for more successful outcomes with less aggressive medical procedures.

Ultimately, consistent screening provides the best opportunity to find and address issues before they become life-threatening or difficult to manage.

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment allowed 32-year-old Harish Rana, who had been living in a vegetative state for last 13 years, the right to die. This means, that the apex court allowed passive euthanasia for Rana. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala an Justice KV Vishwanathan allowed the withdrawal of life support of Rana, who has been in a coma and kept alive on tubes for breathing and nutrition after he sustained severe head injuries following a fall from a building in 2013 in Chandigarh.

The judgment is a win, however, Ashok, Rana's father said that his feelings are mixed. "As a father, this is extremely painful. But on humanitarian grounds, this is the best we can do for my son." He continued, "It is just not a matter of my son, but there are many others in such a state in the country. I think it is the grace of God who guided the Supreme Court judges... I am happy that with this judgments, many others may find a way."

While, this is a landmark judgment, India's conversation on right to die has evolved slowly. What shaped the judgment is also the years old case of Aruna Shanbaugh. This was the case that set the legal framework for right to die, so it could be implemented in practice years later in Rana's case.

Read: Supreme Court Allows 1st Passive Euthanasia For Man In Vegetative State For 13 Years

The Cases That Shaped India's Right To Die

If one could trace the earliest debates that began around the "right to die", one could not overlook Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996). This is where a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the offence of abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code. The apex court ruled that right to life under Article 21 does NOT include a right to die.

While the court did not rule on the validity of active or passive Euthanasia, it did make an important observation, which was later used in the coming euthanasia jurisprudence.

The court noted that the right to live with human dignity would also mean the existence of such a right upto the end of natural life. This means the right to a dignified life upto the point of death, which also includes a dignified procedure of death.

Fast forwarding to 2006, the 196th Law Commission of India said that withholding life support or medical treatment of terminally ill patients does not attract criminal liability of attempt to suicide. The court noted that such a action should be done provided it is done in the best interest of the patient.

Read: Supreme Court Steps In For 31-year-old's Passive Euthanasia Plea Who Has Been In Vegetative State For 10 Years

Aruna Shandbaug Case

In India, euthanasia is allowed under strict guidelines and is only legalized with the withdrawal of life support for terminally ill patients, which means, passive euthanasia. The landmark case if of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital who had been kept in a vegetative condition for more then four decades for finally to be granted passive euthanasia, that too "only by legislation", which means the process must be followed until Parliament makes legislation on this subject.

Shanbaug was a victim of a brutal sexual assault in 1973 that deprived oxygen supply to her brain. In 2009, journalist Pinki Virani approach the Supreme Court to seek permission for euthanasia on Shanbaug's behalf. This was met with much criticism, including from the community of nurses who were taking care of Shanbaug since decades. However, many reports show that despite the care, Shanbaug's condition in hospital continued to worsen.

The court in 2011 refused euthanasia largely due to the opposition from hospital staff who cared for her. However, it did deliver a historic ruling and legalized passive euthanasia in India, subject to prescribed safeguards and High Court approval, and made it lawful "only by legislation", as explained above.

The Important Of Living Will And Right To Die With Dignity

Dr Rajeev Jayadevan, a physician with extensive international clinical experience and a strong interest in public health wrote for Health and Me on the importance of living will. He also noted that recent legal developments "have highlighted the importance of advance planning for end-of-life care".

Read: Harish Rana Case Highlights Why Planning For A Living Will Is Important

The doctrine evolved further in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), when a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra recognized that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court ruled that passive euthanasia is legally valid. It said that while the sanctity of life must be respected, in cases of terminal illness or patients in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, priority should be given to the patient’s advance directive and right to self-determination.

The judgment also introduced the concept of advance medical directives, or “living wills”.

A living will is a written document in which a person can specify in advance the medical treatment they wish to receive if they become terminally ill or are no longer able to give informed consent.

It can also allow family members to withdraw life support if a medical board determines that the patient cannot recover.

The ruling strengthened patient autonomy by allowing people to make decisions about their end-of-life care even when they cannot communicate those wishes later.

What Has Changed Through Judgments?

While the 2018 ruling recognized living wills and passive euthanasia, the process was very complicated. It required approvals and countersigning by a judicial magistrate and multiple procedural steps, which made it difficult for families and hospitals to follow.

In 2019, the Indian Council of Critical Care Medicine told the Supreme Court that these rules were too hard to implement.

Read: Passive Euthanasia: Harish Rana’s Case May Reshape End-of-life Protocols, Say Experts

In 2023, a Constitution Bench simplified the process. Living wills no longer need a magistrate’s signature and can be attested by a notary or gazetted officer. More than one family member can be named as a decision-maker. Hospitals now rely on two medical boards that must give an opinion within 48 hours, and they only need to inform a magistrate rather than seek approval.

The issue came to the forefront in the case of Harish Rana, who suffered severe brain injuries after a fall in 2012 and showed no recovery for 13 years. In 2024, his family approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw life support.

The court allowed it, saying continuing treatment was not in his best interest.

Legal experts say this marks a major shift in India’s approach to passive euthanasia. Over the years, court rulings have strengthened the idea that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21, simplified procedures for living wills, and shown greater willingness to balance the sanctity of life with dignity at the end of life.