Guest guest Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/health/psychology/06MENT.html VITAL SIGNS Mental Health: Double-Teaming Depression By JOHN O'NEIL Published: January 6, 2004 Cognitive therapy and medication are regarded as equally effective in treating depression. But they work in very different ways, according to a study released yesterday comparing brain scans of depressed patients before and after treatment. The study, which was published in The Archives of General Psychiatry, involved 14 patients who attended 15 to 20 sessions of therapy and 13 comparably depressed patients who were treated with paroxetine, an antidepressant better known by its brand name, Paxil. The cognitive therapy provided for the patients aimed to reduce depression by teaching them to recognize and derail negative habits of thought. The study's senior author, Dr. Helen Mayberg of the Rotman Research Institute of Toronto, said scientists had speculated that the therapy had a " top down " action on the brain: changes beginning in the cortex, the area dealing with higher reasoning, go on to affect other areas of more basic functioning. By contrast, research has suggested that antidepressants work as " bottom up " agents, working first on areas like the limbic system that play a big role in memory and basic emotions. The brain scans supported this analysis, the study said. The scans showed that the therapy led to changes in the use of parts of the frontal cortex that were not changed in the patients who took Paxil. Those patients, by contrast, showed changes in the brain stem and parts of the limbic system where the cognitive therapy appeared to have no effect. Dr. Mayberg said the findings could help explain why a combination of the two approaches was often better than either one alone. " They're having effects on areas that don't overlap, " she said. Since some patients respond to one kind of therapy but not the other, the research could lead to better tailoring of treatment, she said. _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/health/psychology/06MENT.html VITAL SIGNS Mental Health: Double-Teaming Depression By JOHN O'NEIL Published: January 6, 2004 Cognitive therapy and medication are regarded as equally effective in treating depression. But they work in very different ways, according to a study released yesterday comparing brain scans of depressed patients before and after treatment. The study, which was published in The Archives of General Psychiatry, involved 14 patients who attended 15 to 20 sessions of therapy and 13 comparably depressed patients who were treated with paroxetine, an antidepressant better known by its brand name, Paxil. The cognitive therapy provided for the patients aimed to reduce depression by teaching them to recognize and derail negative habits of thought. The study's senior author, Dr. Helen Mayberg of the Rotman Research Institute of Toronto, said scientists had speculated that the therapy had a " top down " action on the brain: changes beginning in the cortex, the area dealing with higher reasoning, go on to affect other areas of more basic functioning. By contrast, research has suggested that antidepressants work as " bottom up " agents, working first on areas like the limbic system that play a big role in memory and basic emotions. The brain scans supported this analysis, the study said. The scans showed that the therapy led to changes in the use of parts of the frontal cortex that were not changed in the patients who took Paxil. Those patients, by contrast, showed changes in the brain stem and parts of the limbic system where the cognitive therapy appeared to have no effect. Dr. Mayberg said the findings could help explain why a combination of the two approaches was often better than either one alone. " They're having effects on areas that don't overlap, " she said. Since some patients respond to one kind of therapy but not the other, the research could lead to better tailoring of treatment, she said. _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 the problem with this is these people are suing the state for it. states cant be sued. its in the constitution (originally to protect states from foreign powers and other states. the SP will knock this down until the constitution is changed, otherwise their decision is unconstitutional. it isnt about not agreeing with the disabled community being allowed equal access, but that a federal law is conflicting with a constitutional right - as the SP they have to declare what is constitutional, not what is morally right. there will be a huge uprise if any of these pass - every state legislature in this country would have a goddamn field day freaking out! what we need to do first is lobby the federal congresses to change the 11th amendment protecting states from being sued, to include individuals on cases when the state is violating their rights. ~Kendra > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, January 12, 2004 > > Contact: Burley, 202-467-5730 x 133 > > > > WASHINGTON, DC-The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Tennessee v. Lane > and tomorrow morning. The Court's ruling in the case could have > profound implications for the roughly 49 million Americans with > disabilities. The following is a prepared statement on the case by > Mathis, staff attorney at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, to be > delivered at today's press conference. > > > > " Good morning. My name is Mathis and I am a staff attorney at the > Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a national legal advocacy group for > people with mental disabilities. The Bazelon Center coordinated the filing > of amicus briefs in the Supreme Court to support Lane, Beverly > and the other plaintiffs, because their case is important not just to people > with mental disabilities but to all Americans. > > > > The stakes in this case are high. The wrong ruling could strip millions of > Americans of a critical means of enforcing their rights. Beyond that, it > > would set the stage for further erosion of civil rights in this country. > > > > Tennessee v. Lane is the latest assault by states on Congress's power to > pass laws protecting people's rights. In recent years, the Supreme Court has > struck down parts of key civil rights laws, among them the Violence Against > Women Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. > > > > The Americans with Disabilities Act itself has faced many challenges. The > Supreme Court has already exempted states from having to compensate people > with disabilities for discrimination under the employment provisions of the > ADA, ruling that Congress did not have the Constitutional authority to > subject states to damage claims for employment discrimination. > > > > In Lane, the Court will consider Title II of the ADA, which protects > people with disabilities from discrimination by public entities in > courtrooms, schools, health care programs and other areas of public life. > The Court will decide whether people with disabilities have the right to > seek damages for civil rights violations by state entities. Damages are a > critical means to prevent discrimination and ensure compliance with the law. > > > > But what is at stake in the Lane case is not simply money damages. Lane > is about whether Congress had the power to enact the ADA in the first place. > > > > Congress passed Title II under the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause > of the U.S. Constitution. Tennessee argues that Congress acted > unconstitutionally when it invoked the 14th Amendment. States are also > challenging the constitutionality of Congress's power under the Commerce > Clause in other courts. > > > > This amounts to a double-barreled assault on the ADA-and on the 49 million > Americans with disabilities whose rights the ADA now protects. > > > > The Supreme Court's previous rulings limiting Congress's power to regulate > commerce are cause for serious concern that Title II's most important > provisions-those relating to access to the court system, voting, marriage > and family rights, education and institutionalization-might not be upheld > under the Commerce Clause. > > > > If the Supreme Court rules that Congress had no power to enact the law's > public service provisions, the ADA will no longer offer people with > disabilities any means to seek remedy for many kinds of discrimination, > including: > > > > * Exclusion from court proceedings as litigants, as jurors, as witnesses, > as judges and as spectators. > > > > * The warehousing of people with disabilities in institutions simply > because states have not developed enough services to serve them in their own > homes or other community settings. > > > > * Restrictions, based on their disabilities, on the right to marry or have > > children; > > > * The inaccessibility of public libraries, social services offices, and > > polling places; and > > >* The exclusion from, or unequal treatment in, every aspect of public life. > > > > > > That would be an unacceptable loss. When Congress passed the ADA, it acted > to correct a long history of discrimination against people with disabilities > by states and others. People with disabilities, the civil rights community > and Congress worked too hard to pass the ADA to see it swept away because > states feel they are above the law. > > > > It would be tragic if the Supreme Court negated those efforts by > continuing to strip the ADA of its protections for people with disabilities. > If you keep swinging an axe at a tree, it's bound to fall. We fervently hope > this Court won't go down in history as the one that struck down the ADA. " > > > > # # # > > > > The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law is a national legal advocate for > > people with mental disabilities. Through precedent-setting litigation and > in > > the public policy arena, the Bazelon Center works to advance and preserve > > the rights of people with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 The point you rarely hear discussed on this issue is that it would make a hell of a lot more sense to allow plaintiffs to sue governmental entities to force compliance, rather than to sue for damages. This could actually be productive, and would immediately benefit the disabled community. You would see tangible progress on a large scale basis. Of course, the trial lawyers and other special interest trying to enrich themselves and build their little empires won't discuss such a solution. The so-called activists are more interested in making taxpayer money more accessible to themselves than making public services more accessible to the disabled. But I digress... Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.