Word: suggested
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Despite such anecdotal successes, so far there is little scientific data in humans to support them. Past studies in animals suggest that baclofen does have a powerful anticraving effect, however, and two large, randomized controlled trials of high doses of baclofen are under way. Meanwhile, more and more American doctors are prescribing baclofen for their alcoholic patients, based on experiences like Ameisen's. And yet even if the apparent anti-addiction benefits of the drug - which is currently approved by the government to treat muscle spasms - are borne out in human trials, it might do little to persuade most American...
...many other countries harm reduction is a widely accepted treatment model. In Europe and Canada, government-funded antiaddiction programs routinely help alcoholic patients reduce drinking, even if they won't quit; in Sweden, health officials suggest that cigarette smokers switch to snus (smokeless tobacco), which, unlike smoking, is not associated with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease. American proponents of moderation also argue that by demanding complete sobriety, it is possible that we are missing the chance to improve the health of smokers or problem drinkers who cannot or are not ready to stop entirely...
...high doses, however, baclofen can cause drowsiness and muscle spasms, although preliminary studies including Franklin's suggest that these side effects can be prevented with gradual exposure. Patients must also be weaned off the medication slowly to avoid muscle problems and anxiety. And for the treatment of addiction, it appears that baclofen must be taken indefinitely, since cravings return once the drug is stopped...
...model or the Canadian system that people who are opposed to reform always trot out. Or, alternatively, you just have this bloated system in which we don't even try to make it rational, we just sort of live with what we have. And what I'm trying to suggest is, is that there's this huge space in between where we could make the system much more efficient, much more cost-effective, make people much healthier, and still not have to resort to some of the rationing that people are fearful of. But that - it does require changes...
...think other than that we've been pretty consistent about how I think we need to approach the problem. And by the way, I in no way want to suggest that cost is more important than coverage. My point has been that those two things go hand in hand. If we can't control costs, then we simply can't afford to expand coverage the way we need to. In turn, if we can expand coverage, that actually gives us some leverage with insurers or pharmaceutical industry or others to do more to help make the health care system more...