NCLR Supports DOJ Lawsuit Against Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 10 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             

Contact:
Joseph Rendeiro
(202) 776-1566
jrendeiro@nclr.org

Washington—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a federal lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office over a number of alleged civil rights violations, including discriminatory practices targeting Latinos.  NCLR (National Council of La Raza) firmly stands behind the DOJ’s decision to file suit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and, once again, calls on Sheriff Arpaio to resign.

“DOJ’s findings corroborated what has been a long-standing pattern and practice of unwarranted, unequal, and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” said Janet Murguía, President and CEO of NCLR.  “We welcome DOJ’s lawsuit, in light of the sheriff’s refusal to put in place the necessary mechanisms to prevent abuses of power that have hurt Latino immigrants and U.S. citizens alike.”

As a result of the findings from its investigation, DOJ proposed a settlement that would have required the MCSO to train officers to make constitutional traffic stops, collect data on people arrested in traffic stops, and begin outreach to the Latino community, and it would have required a court-appointed monitor to oversee these changes.  However, Arpaio refused a court monitor, thereby putting an end to negotiations and resulting in the lawsuit.

“We have a high regard for the work that law enforcement officers do every day, as well as their efforts to put in place community policing strategies that uphold the constitution and public safety,” added Murguía.  “Sheriff Arpaio’s practices, however, are a black eye on the law enforcement community.  ‘To serve and protect’ should not be determined by the color of your skin.  We hope that our elected leaders heed this lesson and the dangers of having law enforcement prioritize immigration status over criminal behavior.”

NCLR—the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.  For more information on NCLR, please visit www.nclr.org or follow along on Facebook and Twitter.

###

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

The Violence Against Women Act Must Protect All Victims

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

May 14 2012

By Laura Vazquez, Legislative Analyst, Immigration Policy Project

The NCLR Affiliate Network includes organizations that provide critical services to victims of domestic violence and abuse. When the House Judiciary Committee debated H.R. 4970, the “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012” (VAWA), I was thinking of them. I was thinking of the survivors of domestic violence who have come through their doors. It is these clients that Congress has sought to protect in its history of reauthorizing VAWA. However, H.R. 4970 eradicates protections desperately needed for immigrant survivors of domestic violence. The Latin American Community Center’s Domestic Violence Program, an NCLR Affiliate in Delaware, said, “we witness firsthand how immigrant victims are already at a disadvantage when getting victim protections.” It is because of these stories and because of the fact that far too many immigrants are victims of domestic violence that NCLR strongly opposes H.R. 4970.

In 1994, VAWA was enacted to protect victims of domestic violence. Recognizing that abusers often exploit a victim’s immigration status, Congress created tools to assist survivors in coming forward to report the crime and assist law enforcement in prosecuting the abusers. Community-based organizations, including some NCLR Affiliates, have taken these tools not only to protect immigrant women, but to assist in the prosecutions of the abusers. According to the Department of Justice, since the passage of VAWA, incidences of domestic violence have decreased by more than 50%.

H.R. 4970 seeks to take those tools away, putting victims at risk and giving power to perpetrators of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, and human trafficking. H.R. 4970 would effectively prevent immigrant victims from applying for protection from their abusers. It radically changes the current application process for immigrant women and puts steep new hurdles to eligibility in the path of immigrant survivors seeking protection under VAWA. We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4970 because it denies victims protection and deters victims of crime from cooperating with law enforcement. We hope that Congress can return to the long-standing intent of VAWA and pass a bill that protects all victims of domestic violence.

Issues:
Geography:California, Far West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Texas

View the original article here

Vigorous Exercise Might Protect Against Psoriasis

Click Here!
Women who engage in vigorous activities like running or aerobic exercise may have reduced risk of psoriasis


May 23, 2012 -- Here's yet another reason to exercise: A new study suggests that vigorous physical activity could reduce the risk of psoriasis.
The findings come out of the long-running Nurses' Health Study, which includes only women, but previous research suggests that exercise may also protect men against the chronic skin condition, characterized mostly by inflamed, scaly patches.
As many as 7.5 million Americans have psoriasis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, which says it's the most common autoimmune disease. Men and women are equally affected. Previous research has linked higher body mass index, or BMI, family history of psoriasis, alcohol use, and smoking to the risk of psoriasis.
In the new study, scientists followed nearly 87,000 female nurses for 14 years. None of them had been diagnosed with psoriasis at the beginning of the study. Over the course of the study, the nurses completed three detailed questionnaires about physical activity and were asked to report whether they were ever diagnosed with psoriasis. A total of 1,026 women said they were diagnosed during the study period and provided survey information about their physical activity.

Compared with no vigorous physical activity, vigorous exercise -- the equivalent of 105 minutes of running at a 6-mile-per-hour pace every week -- was associated with a 25% to 30% lower risk of psoriasis. The association remained significant after accounting for BMI, age, smoking, and alcohol use. The researchers say theirs is the first study to investigate the independent association between physical activity and psoriasis.
"The intensity of the exercise is the key," says researcher Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
Only running and performing aerobic exercise or calisthenics were associated with a reduced risk of psoriasis. Other vigorous activities, such as jogging, playing tennis, swimming, and bicycling, were not. The researchers speculate that the highly variable intensity of the latter group of activities might account for the lack of an association with a lower psoriasis risk.
More than a decade ago, Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, reported that male and female psoriasis patients who exercised were likely to have less severe disease. "Walking was protective also," says Raychaudhuri, a rheumatologist at the University of California, Davis. He says he was "a little bit surprised" that Qureshi did not find that to be the case but added that "this study is more elegant than ours" because it collected more detailed information about exercise intensity.
Qureshi's team speculates that the lower risk of psoriasis in women who exercised vigorously might be due to a reduction in system-wide inflammation. Vigorous exercise also might be protective against psoriasis because it decreases anxiety and stress, which are tied to new cases and exacerbations of the disease, the researchers say.
"A good amount of data show that emotional stress reduction is good for psoriasis reduction," Raychaudhuri says.
Exposure to ultraviolet light is a psoriasis treatment, so time spent outdoors exercising, and not the exercise itself, might have explained the lowered risk of the disease, Qureshi says. But his study found that women who ran for only an hour a week had a significantly reduced risk of developing psoriasis than women who spent at least four hours walking outside at an average pace.
Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, a University of Rochester rheumatologist, calls Qureshi's findings "very interesting." Still, Ritchlin says, while exercise is known to be associated with reduced inflammation, "is there something about people who are really athletically inclined that we're not thinking about that would prevent them from getting psoriasis?"
Qureshi says that could be the case, which is why his study needs to be replicated. "You have to interpret the results cautiously because it is a single study," he says. "It is certainly possible that the women who exercise more are just more health-conscious. There could be other factors that could protect them from developing psoriasis."
Qureshi's study appears online in the Archives of Dermatology.
SOURCES: Qureshi, A. Archives of Dermatology, published online May 2012.Abrar Qureshi, MD, MPH, vice chair of dermatology at Brigham and Women's Hospital; assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.Siba Raychaudhuri, MD, University of California, Davis.Chris Ritchlin, MD, MPH, University of Rochester, New York.

Offitt on the offense against National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine budget

The Los Angeles Times wrote about an essay in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, stating:

“…many studies funded by NCCAM lack a sound biological underpinning, which should be an important requirement for funding. For example, NCCAM officials have spent $374 000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750 000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390 000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700 000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406 000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. Additionally, NCCAM has funded studies of acupuncture and therapeutic touch. Using rigorously controlled studies, none of these therapies have been shown to work better than placebo. Some complementary and alternative practitioners argue reasonably that although their therapies might not work better than placebos, placebos may still work for some conditions.

…

Although evaluating the research portfolio of any institute at the NIH is difficult, social and political pressures may influence area-of-interest funding, and decisions should be based on science. For complementary and alternative medicine, it seems that some people believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show; they know what works for them. Because negative studies do not appear to change behavior and because studies performed without a sound biological basis have little to no chance of success, it would make sense for NCCAM to either refrain from funding studies of therapies that border on mysticism such as distance healing, purgings, and prayer; redefine its mission to include a better understanding of the physiology of the placebo response; or shift its resources to other NIH institutes.”

View the original article here

The last line of defense against medication errors: you need to know to keep your family safe

This is a true story.

Yesterday, I picked up a new recipe of antibiotic for my daughter in my local pharmacy.

(We recently adopted my daughter of the India where he had recurrent ear infections resulting in severe hearing loss). (And she is about to undergo the second of several planned surgeries in an attempt to repair the damage.)

Before put to sleep, he left the new drug of the bag, he looked at the instructions and prepared to give the medication according to the instructions on the label.

Just before doing so, I had a quick double-take.

Something seems wrong. I looked at the instructions again and slowly, thought * it * s happening... This * t think right.* then, hit me the dose seemed terribly high for her.

It took me a minute or two to put the pieces together (it had been unusually heavy fighting him preparing for bed, I was tired, I trusted my daughter * s medical and I was thinking perhaps less critically that I have). And then I noticed. The label had a stranger * name s.

After another moment or two, I saw what had really happened.

Medication entered into a table. Each side of the box had a different label... a label was for my daughter and a label for a stranger. And the stranger * s dose was more than twice as much as my daughter * s surgeon had recommended.

(This error * t happens in a homemade pharmacy.) (It happened in a pharmacy in modern new chain whose name would recognize ad on TV.)

I * m not a surgeon... and I * m not a paediatrician... but I'm a doctor trained in internal medicine and I have spent most of the last twelve years writing about speaking and development of systems to reduce the frequency of medication errors and improve the safety of the practice of pharmacy.

This pharmacy error brought the issue of the safety of drugs home for me... literally.

What I can tell you is that this type of error occurs all too often in the United States (and worldwide). And you can have devastating consequences for the people involved.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 25% of patients taking one or more prescription medications will experience an adverse event within three months--and 39% of these are preventable or avoidable.

The Harvard Medical practice study found reported in JAMA in 2001 that 30% of patients with drug-related injuries died or were disabled for more than 6 months.

And what almost everyone who studies accepts this problem is that current systems to select drugs, them, communicating a prescription at a pharmacy, drug dispensing, dosing teaching patients about their safe use are woefully inadequate.

In this series, let's take a close look at the processes that cause medication errors (some things your doctor and pharmacist may not even want you to know) and what measures can be taken specifically to make sure that you and your love are protected from this threat.

Ten years ago, your ability to get current, objective, accurate information about their drugs's fast and easy way was practically non-existent. It would have probably involved a trip to the library and requires considerable knowledge of Pharmacology for the answers.

Today, that * s is not the case. There are a lot of tools online, databases and resources to obtain information about medicines that even your doctor and pharmacist may not know.

We * re going to talk about them, show off to go tell them the key things you need to know about drugs, exposing some myths and let you know the questions you should ask. It * s not as difficult as it may seem.

In fact, it needs to become the last line of defense in the battle against medication errors.

Throughout, we will give you some basic rules that should guide their defense.

Thus rule number 1. Trust, but verify. Never assume that the medication is dosed correctly for you or it has received the right medication for you. Specifically, you should check:

the name of the patient in the bottle;

the name of the doctor in the bottle;

the name of the medicinal product (and cross check to make sure that is a problem or a disease actually have... There are many names of drugs look alike/sound alike out there);

dose (an independent source... to make sure that it is a plausible dose for you);

the * path * (to ensure, for example, be prescribed eyedrops for eye and no mouth or ear... amazingly drug loss injuries occur all the time);

the expiration date.

We * ll talk about some specific resources that will help with each of them throughout this series.

The result, hopefully, will be the piece of knowledge that you and your family are receiving their 7 rights:

drugs right;

correct patient;

correct dosage;

right time;

correct path;

right reason;

correct documentation.

In!

© 2004 Timothy McNamara, MD, MPH

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.