Response to Laurel's Post

I am writing this blog post in response to Laurel Miller’s latest blog post.  Laurel’s post was about abortion and the topics associated with it.  I agree her deposition of the separate arguments for and against abortion.  She states that some of the reasons for abortion include the right of women to do what they want with their own bodies.  I agree, women should be able to do what they want and, after all, who is the government to say that a person cannot choose the rights for their bodies.  The argument against abortion, however, states that because women can choose to have sexual intercourse and potentially become pregnant, she must know the consequences of her actions and must keep the baby.  I can also agree with this statement.

            Laurel presents an accurate reason for her stance.  It seems as if she thinks that, because of abortion, there are many people who could be in the world today that could help out so much.  For instance, what if there has been a baby who was aborted that could find the cure for cancer or solve world hunger?  I think this is a great reason for being anti abortion.

            Laurel then changes her opinion when she finds another article because she sees that people should be able to choose their own rights for their bodies.  I agree with her idea that women can choose their plan for their bodies, but disagree with the idea as it applies to abortion.  Even though a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body, she still must follow the law.  No matter what an abortionist says, a baby in the womb is alive.  It has a heartbeat and has thoughts and feelings.  Even though it is not born it can still feel.  To get rid of an unborn baby through the process of abortion is murder and should not be allowed by any government.

Demonstration Evaluation

For the demonstration evaluation blog assignment I had a good time searching through different speeches to evaluate.  Many of the speeches I found were very humorous and I couldn’t take seriously.  There was a speech on self-defense that just made me laugh the entire time I watched it.  Its probably good that I decided against evaluating that demonstration for this blog assignment because I would have run out of things to say, seeing as I would only be critiquing the video.  Instead, I found this video on Youtube.  It was not the last video I watched, but it was probably the best to critique.

            In the video, the presenter is in his room or a room in his house/apartment where he is recording the video for a class of some sort.  His topic is “how to clean your shoes.”  It was a good idea, but the demonstrator needed to specify that his demonstration applies only to cleaning the bottom of shoes.  In the video he did an excellent job demonstrating, but had a few minor details that could have cleaned up the speech.

            The person demonstrating the speech did a good job of introducing his topic with an abstract idea, rather than just jumping into the topic.  He also talked about each of the tools he would use, which helped out in the understanding of the topic.  After the intro, he talked through the steps involved in his topic and did so in chronological order.  This helped the flow if information.  He then proceeded to follow through on the steps and demonstrate his topic.  His conclusion was ok, but it was rather brief for the somewhat complex process that he described.  In fact, he did not even review the steps of his topic in the conclusion.  He had good tone and pitch overall, but he was slightly monotone and dry.

Overall, his speech was done well, but could have been shaped better with going through his steps again and allowing more time to let the steps sink in. 

In response to Natalie's post

This blog is in response to Natalie's post about stem cell research.   I thought I would comment on this blog because my blog post was also about stem cell research.  After reading Natalie’s post, I have come to the conclusion that she understands the differences in controversy in much the same way I do.  The differences in opinion caused by religion, politics, and other partial parties.  Through religion, people are influenced to the idea that the immorality of, technically, killing another human being so that they refuse to accept any notion of the idea that has even the slightest inclination of coinciding with the ideal that opposes their religion.  On the other hand, politicians and scientists are pushing for new and continued research with stem cells because of the benefits.  It IS true that there are amazing benefits that have already come from stem cells; transplants have been increasingly successful and common as the research has shown that stem cells help patients’ organs successfully transition to the new hosts.  The research that has been done in the past greatly affects how medicine works today.  In similarity, the research that could be done in later years could prove to be useful in even more ways than have been already discovered.  However, I must contrast Natalie’s opinion about stem cell research.  I think that embryonic stem cells are immoral and there should be no research done with them.  Because of the effect on the living embryo, the research should be stopped immediately.  There has been a lot of research done with them and the datum collected should prove plentiful enough to allow for reusing and analysis of the information.  However, adult stem cell research would be beneficial to all people because of the maturation of the cells and the way they would affect all humans.

Stem Cell Research

Since the field of science had been invented, its application into the field of medicine has always been prevalent.  However, in recent years, as scientific research has progressed, controversy has grown over issues that deal with life, death, and every state of life in between.  One such topic that has caused controversy is in the area of genetics and stem cell research.  Stem cells, a biological material that has only gained understanding in the recent past, have been found to aid in recovery for re-growth of cells and the ability for cells to be used as cures for diseases and conditions in the bones, organs, and other bodily matters.

Through religious disputes and arguments over the general ethics of researching with stem cells, a call for and end to stem cell research has been made. This article explains certain details pertaining to the religions aspect against stem cell research.  For example, some of the experiments currently in place deal with embryonic stem cells.  This means that fertilized eggs from a woman’s womb are used for their stem cells and for research that will use the life to potentially help save lives.  Judeo-Christian religions agree that this is to be considered murder because life exists at the very moment of conception/fertilization.  Though science my not present the same belief, this is the reason that some religions look deeply down upon such research.  However, adult stem cell research

On the opposite end of the spectrum, this article explains the scientific stance that politicians and doctors take.  While the controversy of the morality of this issue stands, the benefit it could give people is insurmountable in comparison.  Though both sides of the issue will fight their respective fights, the issue will be a topic for hot discussion and debate for years to come.

I know about this topic because I am a Roman Catholic and have gone to school in private Catholic schools all my life.  This issue has been presented to me many times and in many formats.  In my opinion, I think that stem cell research is ok as long as it is not embryonic and will not sacrifice any life in the hopes that others might be saved.

Response to Alyssa's Blog Post

I am writing this blog in response to Alyssa’s blog post about asthma in underprivileged children.

Reading the blog post, I became fascinated by the article Alyssa described.  I had never thought about the rich-poor gap affecting young children’s health in this way.  I ended up searching for the article because I wanted to learn more.  I could not find the specific article, but came across other articles and journals that explained more about the issue.  Alyssa talks about the reason that underprivileged children are more likely to be caused harm in relation to the diagnosis of asthma and complications due to this disease is because there tends to be more allergens present in poorer areas of the world.

This being said, I must disagree with some of what Alyssa says about the healthcare for poorer people.  Healthcare is a means to stay or become healthy, meaning we should obviously help out those in need of medical attention and care.  However, this should not mean that the government should ration healthcare.  If some people do not have adequate healthcare, we as a nation should work to fix that.  If we can give everyone a MINIMUM healthcare system we would solve the problem that causes poorer citizens to be lacking in health.  It is not necessary to lower healthcare standards for other people in order to give poor people healthcare when we can work towards giving healthcare to all people.

In conclusion, Alyssa has picked a very interesting article that can obviously be taken in various manners, but the issue addressed must be taken notice of in any case.  When the lives of our neighbors and friends are in danger, we could make sure we do everything in our power to aid in eradicating the problem that affects them.  It is our civic duty to help others and solve problems in our country.

Self-Evaluation of Speech

This is my self-evaluation of my speech.  After viewing the speech on the flicker site, I think that I did quite well in giving my speech to the class.  I did not seem very nervous at all and I was not too laid back.  I did run over time a little bit, but that was just a slight planning error.  My speech seemed to be delivered smoothly, in my opinion.  One bad thing I noticed, however, was that I played with my papers a bit too much.  It slightly subtracted from the point I was trying to make about my topic.  Also, I fidgeted with my sleeves, which had the same effect.  My voice inflection seemed normal.  I thought I spoke clearly and with proper variation for the type of speech I was giving.  The speed was good; I paced myself through the speech so I would not have too much time spent on one thing over another and not go too far over the time limit, while I made sure to not rush through my delivery and run under the time minimum.  My visual aids were good; I used adequate pictures of my equipment.  However, I could have added in a video or an actual picture of a wake surfer to show the class what the sport really looks like.  Also, my speech was delivered in a manner that made sense.  I had correct ordering of steps and I set up my introduction and conclusion well so it agreed with my process.  In conclusion, I thought my speech went very well.  I am ready for the next speech, but I really want to get it over with.

I found a blog that talks about car accident victim who has become permanently altered in brain function due to head trauma and concussion symptoms.  The blogger, with the pseudonym “Resilientheart,” has been writing consistently for the past couple years.  He started blogging on August 15, 2008, in order to tell people about the head trauma he had sustained.  He blogs to comment on his life; he talks of every day activities, setbacks that keep him from living a normal life, and the progress he is making with therapy and things.  He does not use Links, most likely because it is a personal blog.  However, he uses some media like videos and recordings to illustrate what he is going through.  Is informative and knows how to touch people through his stories of triumphs and toils.

This blog post is all about concussions.  It talks of concussion symptoms and restrictions.  It tells stories about real people who have had concussions in the past.  It also uses citations from extremely credible sources like Mayo Clinic, the University of Pittsburgh, and several others.  In effect, this blog is the electronic equivalent of the paper I wrote for my Letters and Sciences Communications 100 course.

            This was written on March 25^th, 2009, by a collaboration of people under the group name “Health Care Compliance.”  This group creates a lot of posts about medically related things.  In many respects, I feel that this blog is for the benefit of health care professionals.  Unfortunately, the bloggers have not taken the time to set up interesting media displays or use links in their posts.  This makes the blog seem very dull and boring.  If there were more links to information, more graphs, etc., there would most likely be more people viewing their information.

The blog is in a very different format from the paper I wrote for class.  Not only is it much more casual in tone, but also it lacks certain structure that would allow it to be called a professional work.

RE: Selling Organs?

This post is in response to Megan Courtney’s post.

I completely agree.  I mean, lets be honest, selling organs is pretty creepy.  Imagine walking into your local convenience store with a shopping list in hand.  Your list reads: milk, eggs, butter, NEW KIDNEY.  I mean what the hell, buy organs is insane!  As I said in my post, it presents a health risk to donor and recipients alike.

Ok, ok.  I realize that it is highly unorthodox to criticize an idea like selling organs by saying you can buy them in a convenience store, but you all get the point.  Doesn’t anyone find it slightly odd that I could just walk in to a hospital and say, “where do I sell my kidney?”  It seems a little funny to me.  It strikes a funny feeling in a lot of people, which is part of the reason it is illegal.  Not only does in NOT happen, but it SHOULD NOT happen.  People who are only interested in selling organs for profit cannot be expected to be thinking about all the risks involved with giving up part of their bodies to give to another person in exchange for monetary compensation.

Arguments about the eradication of the transplant waiting list can be made, but how realistic can these really be? Not all parts can be donated while retaining the life of the donor.  This is why medical experts examine those who have died or will die, to see if their organs are satisfactory to be used in saving the lives of others.  If we use some of their parts, why can’t we use all of them? If they are in ok shape, why not use all parts that the patient has given consent to be used.

Organs for Sale????????

No! I do not believe organs should be able to be sold at random.  Allowing people to sell organs on an open market would also allow huge slips in medical safety.  At the rate that patients would demand to sell organs, physicians could not provide a service to aid them in their goal in a safe and hygienic manner.  Also, this would provide a weakness in security for organs donated.  Not only could people potentially sell organs that were of a sketchy background, but also use these organs to target groups of people.  This could almost be considered a new form of terrorism.  By selling organs that are infected by different diseases, people who want to harm others can do so in more discrete and protected manner.  Not only could this situation cause a health problem for those who accept donor organs, but also it could also deeply impact the people who donate parts of their bodies.  By allowing people to sell tissues such as kidneys, skin or bone grafts, etc., donors could cause themselves harm when they contract an illness or become injured and need the parts that they sold for a profit.

         After reading the article my opinion stays the same.  I do not believe that allowing people to sell their organs will help as much as it will hurt people.  When donors think of lives they will save, they tend to overlook the fact that they can potentially risk their own lives.  I do agree that people should be able to take control of their own bodies and do what they want with what they own and are entitled too, but the ethics of this situation concern more than just the people donating organs and those whose lives they are saving.  Offering compensation for organs would not allow these transplants to be considered “donations,” but rather as income.

Obstacles

The synopsis of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks illustrates the true importance of teaching people about bioethics.  This story delves deep into questioning all that the medical field does to help the human race.  However, questions must be asked while relying on others to help us survive and maintain health.  If we receive treatment from professional without gaining adequate information, we are risking our wellbeing.  Also, we are not exercising control of our own bodies.  When receiving a treatment or prescription, why shouldn’t we question what is going on.  Why not ask, “what is this doing for me, and at what cost?”

Doctors are consulted on a daily basis for many different reasons; there are routine check-ups, surgeries, eye appointments, and physical therapy visits just to name a few.  However, if we really look into the story of Henrietta Lacks' life, we begin to question the ethics of every health care professional we have ever met. 

When Rebecca Skloot wrote this book she only thought of education.  Her goal was to educate people about the ethics that surround the practice of medicine in our country.  However, being a medical writer, she mad to change her tactics of writing to allow the public to understand what she wrote.  By changing her terminology from medical jargon to looser phrasing, she was able to capture a wider audience and thus gained the ability to educate a much larger portion of readers.

I do not foresee any challenges while reading this book other than some parts may be slightly graphic.  Graphic could mean racist, sexual, vulgar, or taboo to some people.  However, as we are a relatively small class session and do not have much diversity, I feel as if the class will be ok reading this book. I don't have a problem with medically graphic content in reading because I want to be a surgeon in the future (don't worry, I will be very ethical), but can see how that could pose a problem for some readers.

Feel free to comment, stay tuned for the next post, and remember, I welcome controversy.