JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
-
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a treatment for severe mental illness in which a brief application of electric stimulus is used to produce a generalized seizure. In the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, the treatment was often administered to the most severely disturbed patients residing in large mental institutions. As often occurs with new therapies, ECT was used for a variety of disorders, frequently in high doses and for long periods. ⋯ In recent decades, researchers intensified efforts to establish the effectiveness of ECT and its indications, understand its mechanism of action, clarify the extent of adverse effects, and determine optimum treatment technique. Despite recent research effort yielding substantial information, permitting professional and public evaluation of the safety and efficacy of ECT, the investigation of ECT has not generally been in the mainstream of mental health research. To help resolve questions surrounding these issues, the National Institutes of Health in conjunction with the National Institute of Mental Health convened a Consensus Development Conference on Electroconvulsive Therapy from June 10 to 12, 1985.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
-
This article examines the nature of the controversy between animal activists and the scientific community over the need for and desirability of additional regulation of animal experimentation. We critically review the existing federal and state regulatory environment and discuss a number of proposals for new federal legislation for regulating the use of animals in scientific experimentation. We identify and discuss three factors that encompass the issues that are at the core of the controversy and use these to suggest a conceptual framework in which to analyze schemes for regulating animal experimentation. Finally, we discuss the implications that such regulation will have for animal experimentation and conclude that it is neither necessary nor desirable.
-
Two studies have suggested that the risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women using oral contraceptives is less than half that of nonusers. When a third study from the Mayo Clinic failed to confirm these findings, it was criticized for inclusion of ineligible subjects, misclassification of oral contraceptive use, and inadequate statistical power. Recent expansion of the Mayo Clinic's data resources provided a unique opportunity to resolve the controversy, and a new population-based case-control study was undertaken. ⋯ Comparing any prior use of oral contraceptives with never having used them, the relative risk of rheumatoid arthritis estimated from 182 cases and their 182 matched controls was 1.1 (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.7). The relative risk for current use was 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.7 to 2.4). The lack of a protective effect was independent of age, disease severity, and disease end point (date of confirmed diagnosis or symptom onset).