Search

Purpose: Previous studies provided evidence that persons with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS) who walk intermittently experience less fatigue and walk longer distances than when walking continuously. However, total distance pwMS can walk in either condition is unknown. We examined time and distance to fatigability in pwMS comparing intermittent walking (IW) to continuous walking (CW)., Materials and Methods: 18 pwMS, with Expanded Disability Status Scale median of 4.75 [range = 2-6.5, IQR = 2.5] participated in this randomized crossover study. The IW condition consisted of alternating 30 s treadmill walking and 30 s seated rests. The CW condition consisted of treadmill walking without breaks. Treadmill speed (TS) was determined by an overground 2-min walk test. Walking fatigability was determined by participants walking on the treadmill, until gait fatigue was noted by patient or examiners. Total time and distance to gait fatigue, and subjective fatigue as measured by the Visual analog scale of fatigue were recorded., Results: Participants had significantly longer duration and distance to fatigue in the IW condition than the CW condition ( ps  ≤ 0.037). No difference in VASF scores between the two conditions were noted., Conclusion: In this sample, IW allowed pwMS to perform a greater volume of walking and can be an option to improve walking endurance in this population.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a disease that progressively impacts walking, resulting in a decrease in the maximum distance that a person with MS can walk.Intermittent walking has been shown to improve 6-min walk test performance in persons with MS (pwMS) compared to continuous walking, but its effects on longer and shorter walks is not known.The use of distance to fatigue should be considered a viable option for measuring walking fatigability in pwMS as it does not exclude persons based on their ability to complete a 6-min walk, nor would it be too easy for persons with pwMS with mild disability.By using distance to fatigue as an outcome measure, this study provides evidence that intermittent walking results in less fatigability regardless of walking ability.PwMS, regardless of their walking ability, can walk longer distances intermittently than continuously, suggesting that clinical treatment of walking fatigability in pwMS should utilize intermittent rather than continuous walking training.

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.

The use of organs obtained from executed prisoners in China has recently been condemned by every major transplant organization. The government of the People's Republic of China has also recently made it illegal to provide transplant organs from executed prisoners to foreigners transplant tourists. Nevertheless, the extreme shortage of transplant organs in the U.S. continues to make organ transplantation in China an appealing option for some patients with end-stage disease. Their choice of traveling to China for an organ leaves U.S. transplant programs with decisions about how to respond to the needs of patients who return after transplantation. By discussing two cases that raised this dilemma, we argue for upholding medicine's commitments to traditional principles of beneficence and nonjudgmental regard in sorting out the policies that a transplant program should adopt. We also explain how position statements that aim for the high ground of moral purity fail to give appropriate weight to the needs and suffering of present and future patients in the U.S. and in China.

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.

Quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG) was used to confirm predictions emanating from the neuropsychological examination of an adolescent with expressive aprosodia. Previous research has indicated that expressive deficits in prosody can be caused by cerebral damage to the right hemisphere region homologous to Broca's area. The neuropsychological evaluation of this individual indicates probable right anterior cerebral dysfunction. Taken together, a priori hypotheses included a relative deficit in cerebral arousal of right-relative to left-frontotemporal regions. EEG results confirm the hypothesis and provide case study evidence for both: (a). right anterior mediation of prosodic expression as well as (b). support for the inclusion of QEEG as part of a clinical neuropsychological evaluation.

John Robertson presents a persuasive argument against government prohibition of preconception sex selection (PSS) as long as there is no actual evidence of significant social harm from allowing the technology to be freely available. I am convinced by what he says about PSS and have argued along similar lines in my own work (Rhodes 1995). In these comments, I will press Robertson's conclusion in several directions to show what more he might have said in its defense.