Search Results (2)

Focused ultrasound (FUS) is an emerging noninvasive technology with significant therapeutic potential across various clinical domains. FUS enables precise targeting of tissues using mechanisms like thermoablation, mechanical disruption, and neuromodulation, minimizing damage to surrounding areas. In movement disorders such as essential tremor and Parkinson’s disease, MR-guided FUS thalamotomy has demonstrated substantial tremor reduction and improved quality of life. Psychiatric applications include anterior capsulotomy for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depressive disorder, with promising symptom relief and minimal cognitive side effects. FUS also facilitates blood-brain barrier opening for drug delivery in neurological conditions like Alzheimer’s disease. Musculoskeletal applications highlight its efficacy in managing chronic pain from knee osteoarthritis and lumbar facet joint syndrome through precise thermal ablation. Additionally, FUS has shown potential in neuropathic pain management and peripheral nerve stimulation, offering innovative approaches for amputees and cancer survivors. Cognitive and neuromodulatory research underscores its ability to enhance motor function and interhemispheric cortical balance, benefiting stroke and traumatic brain injury rehabilitation. Despite these conditions frequently leading to various kinds of disabilities, no direct exploration of the possible FUS application in rehabilitation is yet available in the literature. All this considered, this review aims to discuss how FUS could be applied in rehabilitation, exploring the current status of knowledge and highlighting future directions. Full article

In this paper, I argue that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Guidelines on Deinstitutionalization, Including in Emergencies function as an instrument and template for reparative justice towards persons still in institutions and survivors of institutionalization. The Guidelines construct deinstitutionalization as a reparative process at both the systemic and individual levels, as well as calling for the creation of reparation and redress mechanisms. I examine the entire body of the Guidelines, highlight their reparative content, and point out where the text may fall short of this perspective and how the shortcomings might be remedied. This paper is grounded in the situation of psychiatric institutionalization and the concerns of people subjected to that system, emphasizing issues faced by this constituency and its human rights concerns for redress and legal and societal change. The issues addressed include the following: the strengthening of normative standards with regard to the abolition of psychiatric institutionalization and forced interventions and the obligation to immediately end these violations; a policy shift towards the de-medicalization of psychosocial disability; the implications of reparative justice in diminishing the role and authority of those that have operated institutions including the mental health system; the role of adult persons with disabilities as members of families and the role played by some family members in institutionalization; issues to be considered in designing reparations processes and mechanisms. Following some introductory remarks, this paper is structured to follow the outline of the Guidelines, quoting the text with interspersed comments and ending with a brief conclusion. Full article