Student saved by USD 428 staff after swallowing a pop lid
School Board President Jacquie Disque read the description of what happened one month earlier. During lunchtime on Friday, May 9, a student was showing signs of distress and music teacher Kelsey Strickland immediately came to his aid. "She determined that the student accidentally swallowed the lid of a pop can, which was lodged in the student's throat." Strickland then ran to get assistance from Cyleigh Unruh, the school nurse, and Abigail Jonas, the principal. They tended to the student, kept him calm, and made sure he got immediate medical attention.
"The student was taken to the emergency room and, upon evaluation, required a surgical procedure to remove the pop can lid from their esophagus. Thanks to the quick thinking and actions of these district staff, the student received prompt medical care and has made a complete recovery without any serious injuries."
Board member Aaron Emerson joined Superintendent Khris Thexton in presenting the award, revealing the fact that the student in distress was his son.
The metal disc from the pop can has been framed and his son no longer drinks sodas from "pop tops," Emerson said.
"We're glad you were there," Disque told the staff members.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WebMD
19 minutes ago
- WebMD
Mastectomy or Lumpectomy? Reassuring New Data for Young Women
July 23, 2025 – Young women diagnosed with breast cancer may not need to choose aggressive surgery to reduce recurrence risk. New research suggests the likelihood of cancer recurring (coming back) in the same breast or nearby lymph nodes isn't related to her choice of surgical treatment – removing either the cancerous tissue (lumpectomy) or one or both breasts (mastectomy). And for women 40 and under with invasive but not incurable cancer, recurrence risk across the board was "low" – just 5.6% over 10 years. "Many young women with breast cancer choose to have bilateral mastectomies even if they may be a candidate for a smaller surgery," said study author Laura S. Dominici, MD, a breast surgeon at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham in Boston. "We know survival isn't impacted by this choice, but historically, young women were felt to have higher risk for local recurrence and tend to have more 'aggressive' breast cancers." The new findings, published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery, suggest that "women cannot make a bad choice," Dominici said. "A woman who wants to keep her breast isn't trading off a cancer outcome to do so." Of the more than 1,100 people in the study, 30% had lumpectomy, 26% had a single mastectomy, and 43% had bilateral mastectomy. When researchers analyzed surgical treatment alongside cancer subtype – such as whether it was related to hormones or certain genes – they found no significant differences in recurrence rates. Researchers attributed the low risk to advances in cancer treatments, which have become more targeted. Breast cancer patients in the study were diagnosed between 2006 and 2015, and they received optimal treatment after surgery – meaning breast cancer in young women may not be as likely to come back as older research suggested. Does This Research Apply to Me? The study included women age 40 or younger with stage I, II, or III breast cancer of any subtype – meaning hormone receptor-positive, triple negative, or any ERBB2 (formerly HER2) genetic status. If that describes you, you may want to talk to your doctor about it. The researchers excluded women with stage IV breast cancer (which has already spread to other parts of the body) and women with stage 0, or ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS. "The results do require some caution in their generalizability because the patients were not from diverse populations, with nearly 85% non-Hispanic White women," Julie A. Margenthaler, MD, wrote in a commentary published with the study. Margenthaler was not involved in the study and is a breast cancer surgeon at WashU Medicine in St. Louis. What Type of Recurrence Did This Study Look For? It looked for local or regional recurrence (that is, in the same breast or surrounding lymph nodes), but not distant recurrence – when breast cancer returns in a distant part of the body like the brain or bones. That's a stage IV diagnosis, which is usually considered treatable but not curable. What About BRCA? About 1 in 10 women in the study had known BRCA genetic involvement, and most had mastectomies. "Women do not have to have a mastectomy in this setting, but many of them consider it," Dominici said. "Mastectomies will reduce the risk for future cancers (for which patients with BRCA mutations are at higher risk) but will not reduce risk for recurrence of the current cancer. A woman with BRCA mutation having lumpectomy should be doing high-risk screening with mammogram and MRI." Does This Mean I Should Get a Lumpectomy? When deciding what breast cancer surgery to have, you need to consider physical, emotional, and psychological factors, said Dominici, who is also a professor at Harvard Medical School. "There is no 'right' answer," she said, "and it is often hard for women to both appreciate and consider the short- and long-term impacts of the different surgeries." Lumpectomy may not be an option for some women with cancer in a significant portion or multiple areas of the breast, Dominici said. "Surgery is one important part of treatment, but systemic therapy and radiation are also key to lower risk for recurrence," she said.
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Biden's alleged Ambien use, Trump health concerns and MRI death
MEDICAL MIRACLE – A man's deadly brain cancer tumor disappeared after an experimental drug trial. Continue reading… ATOMIC THREAT - Higher cancer rates have been linked to WWII radioactive waste in a Midwestern creek. Continue reading… Fox News LifestyleFox News Health
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Investigate Biden's health in office, but investigate Trump's, too
The argument in the July 11 editorial, 'Why Congress should investigate Biden's health,' that Congress should investigate Joe Biden's health while he served as president, would have been far stronger if the board had also argued for looking into President Donald Trump's health. Investigating Biden's situation after the fact might help support arguments for greater transparency and awareness. But politicizing the move by focusing on one party dooms the effort at this point. Furthermore, demonstrating a clear, current focus on fitness for service strengthens the argument for investigating Biden's health now. And need I mention, investigating Trump's health would highlight any risks the nation faces now — not just hypothetically, were Biden to have won the 2024 election. Examining what health-related assessments are the norm in high-level executive positions in both private- and public-sector organizations would also offer insights into how Congress should handle these cases. Tom Martella, Washington The July 11 editorial on the congressional investigation into former president Joe Biden's health during his administration cited a number of concerns. Those included forgetting names of top aides, use of teleprompters and tiredness, which imply that Biden might have been unable to fully exercise the duties of the presidency. The editorial also pushed for Kevin O'Connor, Biden's onetime doctor, to be more forthcoming about his patient's health despite confidentiality laws that apply to health records. To expect an unbiased and nonpolitical investigation into this matter as the editorial would want is ludicrous, given the political environment of Congress. Though such an investigation could be useful, it could only provide meaningful information if conducted by an independent team of experts and if not politically motivated. Congress could authorize such a review. Congress's job is to investigate and react to what is going on in the country by proposing laws. What laws would be proposed after an investigation into Biden's health? Limit the age at which a candidate could run for president? Such an action would probably require a constitutional amendment and take years to enact. Though Biden might have exhibited some of the symptoms of age, whether they affected his ability to function as president is doubtful, as he achieved many positive things for the country during his term. With so much at stake in the country these days, Congress should spend its time on much more pressing issues. Jared Wermiel, Silver Spring Sadly, the 'unflinching investigation into Biden's fitness' that the July 11 editorial advocated would probably never happen in today's Congress. Extreme polarization has made it impossible. Democrats do not have faith in Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky), chairman of the Oversight Committee, to conduct a proper investigation. Nor should they, given that Comer's impeachment investigation of President Joe Biden was unbecoming of Congress. Even Comer's witness, conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley, testified there was not enough evidence for impeachment. So, unlike the Editorial Board, I am not the least bit disappointed that former White House physician Kevin O'Connor is refusing to testify. But I do agree fully with the Editorial Board that Americans deserve an unflinching investigation into Biden's health. I am a Democrat of 45 years, and I am extremely disappointed in what has occurred with what seems to me to be a cover-up into the serious matter of a president's health. Democrats' claim that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy was undermined when they appeared to hide from American voters the condition of their 2024 presidential candidate. Attempting to conceal the true condition of their candidate would be a threat to democracy. Bruce Kirby, Rockville Does it really matter whether Congress investigates former president Joe Biden's health in office, as the July 11 editorial charged? He's retired. Leave him alone. Here's a better idea: Investigate the health of our current president. He's the only one who should really matter to Congress. During Donald Trump's first term, dozens of psychiatrists and mental health experts collaborated on a book alerting the American public to the potential danger he posed. Clues to Trump's mental state have been plainly observable for many years. So have at it, lawmakers. But, if they determine that Trump suffers from a health issue that makes him unfit for office, they must act for the nation's good and not for political advantage. Paul Mazich, Yorktown, Virginia The writer is a retired commander in the U.S. Navy. Regarding the July 19 editorial, 'The opioid settlement can help save lives': Naloxone, or Narcan, is a lifesaving tool, and expanding its accessibility should absolutely be a key target of opioid settlement fund spending. But it is not the only strategy worthy of investment. The settlement agreement allows for the funds to be used for opioid use disorder and other substance use disorders, recognizing the high rates of poly-substance use and that substance-specific strategies are often ineffective (particularly for prevention). These funds provide an unprecedented opportunity to address our nation's addiction crisis. Let's encourage states to spend them on the things that we know work not only to reduce opioid overdoses but also to end the recurring cycles of addiction and drug epidemics. Spending all settlement funds on increasing access to naloxone will not prevent the emergence of the next drug epidemic. This can only be done by investing the settlement funds in effective prevention strategies that promote resilience and emotional well-being among youths, targeting the root causes of substance use and an array of other negative health and social outcomes. Though naloxone is a powerful tool for preventing overdose, it will not prevent drug use, nor is it a treatment for addiction. It only reverses opioid overdoses; it does not reduce deaths from other major contributors to preventable deaths in the United States: alcohol and tobacco. Treatment, particularly Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder, is also a critical tool for reducing overdoses. The suggestion that treatment only works for people willing to seek it out ignores the reality that treatment is widely unavailable and often unaffordable. Expanding access to effective treatment must also be a key focus of the settlement fund spending. States should absolutely use the settlement funds to prevent opioid overdoses and save lives. The danger is in suggesting that there is one solution to this multifaceted crisis. Lindsey Vuolo, New York Linda Richter, Scarsdale, New York Lindsey Vuolo is vice president of health law and policy at the Partnership to End Addiction. Linda Richter is senior vice president of prevention research and analysis. In 2013, we worked on the development of the White House drug strategy, which recommended broader access to naloxone and also recognized the need for an expanded system of care for people with substance use disorder. We are encouraged by The Post's July 19 editorial that called attention to the persistent issue of overdose deaths facing the United States. We also appreciated the Editorial Board's desire to see opioid settlement dollars spent on evidence-based interventions that will reduce overdose deaths. We heartily agree and have dedicated our careers to advancing these interventions. However, though we agree that naloxone and overdose prevention efforts are key elements of a state or local community's response to overdose deaths, naloxone cannot be the primary or sole response simply because this investment alone will not yield the greatest possible impact. Methadone and buprenorphine are the most evidence-based treatment medications for opioid use disorder, and they can have the biggest impact on mortality. That's because these medications provide long-term overdose prevention, decreasing mortality by nearly 50 percent; they support sustained recovery and improved outcomes for individuals, as well as stability for families and communities; and naloxone is estimated to have only a 3.6 percent mortality prevention effect. Treatment medications dramatically lessen illicit opioid use, thereby driving down the risk of overdose (and the demand for illicit opioids such as fentanyl). As the editorial states, long-term efforts are needed, but we must also look to the evidence to drive effective strategies that improve lives and prevent deaths. Regina LaBelle, Takoma Park Caleb Banta-Green, Seattle Regina LaBelle was acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Biden administration and also served at ONDCP in the Obama administration. Caleb Banta-Green was a senior science adviser at the White House ONDCP during the Obama administration. Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.
