Postmortem changes in the levels of monoamine metabolites in human cerebrospinal fluid.

Four monoamine metabolites, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC), homovanillic acid (HVA), 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG) and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), were determined in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of cadavers, whose causes of death had been suicidal hanging (SH) or ischemic heart failure (IHF). The concentration of DOPAC increased in parallel with the increment of the postmortem interval (PMI) (r = 0.626), whereas the concentrations of HVA, MHPG and 5-HIAA did not. The correlation coefficient was further increased by considering each cause of death separately: i.e., SH, r = 0.761; IHF, r = 0.705. These findings suggest the possible usefulness of the DOPAC level in CSF for estimating PMI.     

Sudden death caused by tension pneumothorax after rupture of a thoracic aortic aneurysm. Case report

A rare case of fatal tension pneumothorax is reported. An aged Japanese man with marked subcutaneous emphysema of the neck was found collapsed in a betting office. He was ascertained to have left tension pneumothorax, based on radiographic examinations carried out before his death. At autopsy, severe pneumomediastinum was observed, and the descending thoracic aorta with a ruptured dissecting aneurysm was closely adhered to the left lung pleura. The hemorrhage spread into the pulmonary parenchyma and finally spouted out from the surface of the lung apex. Because the blood loss itself was not fatal in quantity, it is concluded that the patient died of tension pneumothorax caused by a lung penetration from the rupture of an aortic aneurysm.     

S��tmaka, Nair��tmya, and A-Nair��tmya: Dharmak��rti��s Counter-Argument Against the Proof of ��tman

??tman (soul) and Nair??tmya (no soul) are, for the Brahmanical schools and the Buddhists respectively, equally fundamental tenets which neither side can concede to the other. Among the 16 formulations presented by Uddyotakara, the fifteenth, which is a proof of ??tman and is originally an indirect proof (av??ta/??v??ta), is presented in a prasa?ga-style, and contains double negation (na nair??tmyam) in the thesis. However, it is perhaps Dharmak??rti who first transformed it into a normal style (s??tmakam). He is well aware of the law of excluded middle, and insisits that the negation is paryud??sa. On the Ny??ya side, Uddyotakara at least seems to be unaware of the law of the logical equivalence of contraposition concerning pervasion (vy??pti). After Uddyotakara, however, Vyoman (Vyoma?iva), Bh??sarvajña and V??caspatimi?ra, all seem to be well aware of it. Dharmak??rti, in his conter-argument against the proof of ??tman, discusses the negative expressions ????nair??tmya?? and ????a-nair??tmya?? Dharmak??rti here uses two logical arguments skillfully and tactically. As a critic of both the authenticity of the Veda and the existence of ??tman, he insists on the theory of dichotomy and the equivalence of anvaya and vyatireka, whereas as an apologist he denies the application of these theories to the relation between the existence of ??tman and the concept of nair??tmya, because for him as a Buddhist the latter is not a negative but essentially positive state of affairs.