A double-blind study of the efficacy of apomorphine and its assessment in "off-periods in Parkinson's disease

Five patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease with severe response fluctuations were selected for a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study, concerning the clinical effects of subcutaneous apomorphine and its assessment in `off¿-periods. The study was designed as five n = 1 studies, in which every patient was his own control. The effect of apomorphine was studied by using the Columbia rating scale and quantitative assessments, using tapping, walking and pinboard. There was a significant positive effect of apomorphine, in a mean optimal dose of 2.7 mg, with a mean latency of onset of 7.3 min and a mean duration of response of 96 min. After pretreatment with domperidone, no significant adverse effects were observed. Tapping showed the highest correlation with rigidity and bradykinesia. Walking showed a high correlation with stability and gait. Pinboard testing did not give additional information. The first conclusion was that apomorphine proved to be a significantly effective dopamine agonist, proven now also by a double blind placebo-controlled study. Secondly it was concluded that assessment of clinical effect in parkinsonian patients can be performed best by combining the Columbia item tremor with tapping and walking scores

Splitting a Difference of Opinion:The Shift to Negotiation

Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into negotiations and when would this be unwarranted or even fallacious? Second, what is the nature of a compromise? What does it mean to settle instead of resolve a difference of opinion, and what might be the dialectical consequences of mistaking a compromise for a substantial resolution? Our main aim is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation and to show how arguing disputants can shift to negotiation in a dialectically virtuous way.</p

Splitting a difference of opinion

When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, discussants may choose to negotiate for a compromise. Is it legitimate to abandon the search for a resolution, and instead enter into a negotiation that aims at settling the difference of opinion? What is the nature of a compromise, in contradistinction to a resolution? What kinds of argument do participants typically put to use in their negotiation dialogues

Be Reasonable!:How to Be an Optimist in the 'Age of Unreason'

Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion