Peer Response to Jess Martell's Post

Jess Martell posted a very controversial topic on her blog page recently. She discussed the topic of germline genetic therapy, a rising issues in the science field today. Germline genetic therapy is the manipulation of genes to alter one’s DNA. Jess supports this by providing links to a supporting site and a site against. Jess believes that genetic therapy should be researched further to help prevent genetic diseases in the future. Her stance is if we have the technology and the ability to help solve diseases we should be doing so. Ethics does not support genetic therapy being it would narrow the genetic diversity in our society. Having the ability to “play god” goes against moral ethics and this is where many people argue that it is unethical. Jess supports both sides well; she sources Washington Post Science Department on why it will be beneficial to continue research on this and then provides a counterargument link to Think Quest, a scientific foundation, which explains the disadvantages to genetic therapy.

I also believe with Jess’s stance on supporting genetic therapy. She provides a valid quote that I stand behind, “Think about confronting a person in the future with a genetic disease that you could have prevented," said Walters, the Georgetown ethicist, "and telling them that even though you knew how to fix it, you stopped because you thought society might abuse this thing." I believe if we have that capability to solve genetic diseases now we should take advantage of it, however under regulations. If society would be able to choose every quality of their offspring I believe that if would conflict with ethics. Jess provides good sources supporting genetic therapy along with ones against it. Overall Jess does a good job at providing both sides of genetic therapy.

To view Jess's Blog

Ethics vs. Medicine on Stem Cell Research

                Stem cell research is a very debatable subject in the United States. It was just a year ago that stem cell research became legal and actual research didn’t start till this past spring. Stem cell research is done by using human tissue cells to conduct tests on. Stem cells are tested on due to their importance during growth and early life, and their importance leads to traits of humans later in life along with reason for diseases.  Laboratory studies of stem cells enable scientists to learn about the cells’ essential properties and what makes them different from specialized cell types. Debate on stem cell research arises in using embryonic cells to study on, which have to be extracted from the embryo before differentiating begins. This process requires the destruction of the embryo and the destruction of a prospective life. Some believe that this process is murder. However, those supporting it believe that the research will lead to the elimination of birth defects and diseases and help create a healthier human population. Ethics would oppose stem cell research due to the fact that it is killing a prospective life and tampering with the natural order of human life. Over time the research could lead to the selection of traits that an embryo would obtain, eliminating the variety in the human race. More benefits of stem cell research are listed in the follow link. Many religious groups are against the use of embryonic cells, and believe doctors who perform research should be charged with murder in court. (Religious Views on Stem Cell Research) I believe that stem cell research will benefit our society, helping reduce birth defects and cancerous cells. The opposition against it, murder and the narrowing of diversity in our society are valid arguments, but I believe that if they are creating the embryo for a scientific purpose it is not directly murdering a human life. We have the technology to solve cancer and birth defects and I believe we should use it for the betterment of the world.

Learn more about the process of stem cell research.

Peer Response to Allison S. Blog

The sale of organs is a very controversial topic and can have many different views, Allison provides many reasons why selling should not be legal. It is easy to understand that Allison does not support the sale of organs and effectively argues her side. She supports her reasoning with reasoning of self-exploitation and the disputable way of paying for organs. I personally believe that the sale of organs should be made legal, but after reading Allison’s agreement she pinpoints the areas of weakness, where regulation and supervision would be needed. Allison does provide a clear, distinct reasoning behind her standing, which makes the reader review their stance on the topic.
Allison also provides a link to the article “Sell organs to save lives” that discusses the benefits and downfalls of legalizing the sale of organs. I advise that Allison’s blog be read before taking a stance on this subject.

Technorati Search: The United States Healthcare System

Technorati is a search engine used to find blogs and blog-related content. I recently used Technorati to search for information related to the United States healthcare system, the topic of my persuasive paper. Technorati lead me to an informative blog, America’s Frist Universal Health Program Is Failing Miserably, by Rob Port. In Port’s blog he discusses kidney dialysis in America and compares it to that of other countries.  Ports blog on America’s Healthcare has been active since November 10, 2010. Port creates five or more blogs daily, all revolving around political and governmental issues. He also uses hyperlinks in his post, leading the viewer to his source of information, a magazine article referred to in his blog. Port also uses pictures in his blogs. Rob Port’s blog was very informative, but there was even more information in the comments made about his posts. Port’s blog was hit up many times with additional feedback showing the viewer’s many sides of this topic.

Another link that Technorati provided was, New Report Reveals Health Insurance Industry Pumped $86 Million Into the U.S. Chamber to Kill Reform. This blog was a part of Think Progress and was written on November 17, 2010 by Lee Fang. Fang provides three to four posts weekly if not more. He uses picture video, and links to almost all of his blogs. The difference in the type of writing Fang provides and that which would be used in writing a research paper would be the way you present yourself to your audience and the position you take on the topic. In a blog you have the ability to communicate with your reader at a more conversational and relaxed style. In a research paper all information on the topics are presented to the reader in a professional style. Also in research papers the author does not have a bias approach to the topic and presents all information clearly and without favoring a certain view. In Fang’s blog he takes an economist side to the problem of healthcare, altering the way the readers view the article.

To use Technorati click here.

Demonstration Speech Evalution

When presenting a demonstration speech, I found that it is much easier to preform the speech if you are actually in the process of what you are demonstrating. Before writing my speech, I knew that demostrating how to build a grain bin would be difficult to talk on, but I felt that I had plenty of knowledge to go from. After my speech though, I realized that by choosing a different topic it would have made my topic a lot easier to talk upon, not having prepare what I would say so in depth. From that realization during the speech I believe my content was somewhat unclear to those who have no experience with grain bins. During the speech, I repeatedly would talk upon a subject not using the note cards and then be lost when I returned to them. As you can see from the video, my time was over the five to six minute range. Towards the end of my speech, you could sense that I was rushing what I was showing the class in order to cut back on time. When concluding my speech it was also undefined at when I was finished, after asking for question and hearing no response I returned to the computer to stop the video. A simple phrase of, "Thank you for your time," would have easily concluded the speech and given the audience that the speech was finished. Finally, during speeches a lot of people tend to do things with their body when they are not standing behind something, for myself it is easily notable I like to rock my body weight from foot to foot, which could be distracting for auidence members. In conclusion, I would rate my speech low, the content was unclear then rushed towards the end, my conclusion was unclear, I repeatedly got lost in with the note cards, and swayed my body when presenting. The topic of my speech was hard to demonstrate fully on, but there were many places where I could have improved on.

To preview my speech.

Rebecca Skloot's Visit to UW

Rebecca Skloot’s visit to the UW campus on October 25, 2010 had been looked forward to since the beginning of the semester. Students, faculty and public filled the Kohl Center to listen to Skloot and ask questions on her book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Rebecca read excerpts from her book and discussed her journey of gathering information for the book. One point she discussed that impacted me was when Rebecca talked to Henrietta’s family; they were so uneducated that when scientists called to conduct research on them they actually believed Henrietta was alive in a jail cell. Rebecca answered many questions that UW students had submitted. In conclusion, Rebecca Skloot’s visit to the UW campus was a highlight of the semester so far and her book is an ideal fit to the Go Big Read program.
For more information on Rebecca visit her webpage.

Response to James McGuire's Post on PTSD

After reading James McGuire’s post on Ethics and Medicine I have become very informed on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD is an illness from high related times of stress, which can occur following any frightening event in a person’s life. James’s post discusses if the use of Propranolol is ethically correct. Propranolol is drug that consolidates one’s emotional memory and weakens emotions attached to memories. In the post James provides two different links, each supporting different views of the use of Propranolol. In the article expressing the strengths of Propanolol it provides many reasoning’s behind why it is effect to use Propranolol for PTSD patients. Propranolol provides a relief for those who need to get away from terrorizing memories. In contrast however, those who argue against the use stated that it is an anti-depressant that may manipulates one’s memory, forcing one believe something unrealistic.

            In conclusion, James’s post was very informative towards an unfamiliar topic. He provides support for each side of the topic with creditable sources.  After reading these articles I also believe with James, but depending on the circumstance. If someone in a state of PTSD is looking for depressant they may not be fully aware of the affects of the drug, and maybe just looking for a remedy. 

Visit James's blog to learn more.

Demonstration Evaluation

In the clip Global Warming, we are informed of the causes of global warming and the affects it could have on the world in the years to come. We learn the science behind global warming and how the green house gases are influencing the temperature of the planet. We learn the impact that it is having on not only the climate, but the animals also. In the conclusion, we learn different ways to safe the earth and do our part in reducing the affects of global warming.
This clip informs people of a crucial topic in our world, by informing viewers of the science and contributors of global warming; they are able to understand what global warming is. We learn how scientists research about global warming, and how they continue to conduct research. Global warming is a very important topic, and a solution for this problem needs to be found, by informing people of the problem it will help create awareness of what is happening to our planet.
During this clip they easily describe to the viewer just what is happening to the earth. They transition from causes, scientific explanation, to affect, and then to what we can do to help avoid this catastrophe. Drawbacks of this clip, are in the information given, compared to the amount unknown. This topic continues to grow and more research is needed to find an appropriate solution to the problem. In conclusion, this clip was very informative and any viewer cannot go away without learning something about global warming.

For more information on global warming visit National Geographic.

Peer Response #1

I am responding to Bryant Ray's post on whether selling organs is ethical or not. Bryant believes that the sale of organs should be legalized, but with regulations. He compares the sale of one's organs to the harvesting of plasma. Byrant believes that by legalizing the sale of organs it would be beneficial to those in need of organs and those selling, but guidelines would be needed. These include knowing the health of the donor and organ, ensuring that the buyer is paying for an organ that will be worth the surgery and the cost, and regulating the market, monitoring the prices which the organs sell at. Final Bryant makes the case that we should have the right to do what we want with our bodies. 

Bryant also provides a link to Eight Ethical Objections to an Organ Market....and Why They're Wrong by Stephanie R. Murphy. Murphy gives eight examples to why he is against an organ market. He provides many examples such as financial problems that it would create the health risks to the seller and buyer, and the danger of selling organs. Murphy also brings up a topic of religion and the selling one’s organs, a topic which I had not considered. Some religions are against the trade of one’s organs it is deemed obscene. This article makes a powerful case to why the sale of organs is wrong but in my opinion I agree with Bryant's argument, that the sale of organs should be legalized. His post contains valid arguments to the pro’s and con’s of legalizing the sale of organs, but by living in a free country we should have the right to do what we please with our body.

            Bryant provides good links to his post, showing both sides of the case.  These links make Bryant’s views unclear however. Bryant supports the selling one’s organs but his first link shows the opposite views. His second and third link provides views from both sides of the spectrum. Neither of these sources directly supports Bryant’s views and opinions on this case. Overall I agree with Bryant and belief that the sale of organs should be legalized, giving humans rights to their body in order to help others in need. Finally, I enjoyed reading Bryant's views on this topic and seeing new views on this topic.

Organs for Sale?

            What distinguishes the difference between selling one’s organs and selling one’s plasma? This comes to mind when I think about if individuals should have the right to sell their organs. There are two different ways to approach this question, from the seller or the buyer.  First, if the seller is a healthy human who can survive without one of his or her organs, why don’t they have the right to help save someone’s life by being selling their organ? From an economist’s point of view, selling one’s organs is only sensible. It is a market where if you are willing to sell, you have no risk of losing in the market; either making a profit in selling or remaining the same by keeping the organ. The product never gets wasted. People in need of an organ are going to put out a major amount of money when trying to save their life, and if you as the seller can survive without the organ, it is only logical. However, when you take the view from the buyer or one in need of an organ is it really ethical to have to pay when your life is already on the line? The buyer is already going to have to pay thousands of dollars for medical bills and now having to pay for the organ, financially it is going to leave them in a huge financial debt after their surgery. Is it really right to put someone in a position where you are putting a price tag on their life? In my personal opinion, it is legally correct, but ethically wrong. Someone who is in a position of losing their life should not have to pay the rest of their life away to survive and the one selling their organ should not be doing it for the number on the check, they should be doing it because of human compassion for each other.

            After reading “Sell Organs to Save Lives” my opinion does not change. Author Martin Wilkinson makes many powerful points on why the selling of organs should be legalized. I agree with Wilkinson, but also agree with that, the market would need to be regulated. We as humans can not be ethically correct by selling organs at overwhelming prices, forcing the buyer into unrealistic debt.  Yes, they should get paid a good deal; they are selling a part of their body and will have to change their own life style for the rest of their life. But there needs to be equilibrium within the market. Finally, if by legalizing the sale of organs decreases the number of organ donors it will make transplants for the middle or low class somewhat impossible to receive. Only the rich will be able to buy organs and not enough donors will be there to balance the number in need. Selling one’s organs can be a very profitable sale, but are you willing to make the person and their loved ones put a price on their life?

More information on the sale of organs

Obstacles in writing/reading TILOHL

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks shares the story of a African American women who died over fifty years ago and still has cells living today, of which she did not even know were taken from her. From reading the synopsis of TILOH, I believe this story needs to be heard by the public to inform people of Henrietta’s life. Author, Rebecca Skloot, informs people of Henrietta’s journey and the journey of her cells, which have lead to multiple discoveries in science and to the birth of many life saving medications. By informing the public of Henrietta’s experience, it opens the eyes of many citizens to what could actually happen to someone’s cell sample. It creates awareness of the actuality of what may happen when letting a doctor take a bio-sample from your body. Many people don’t realize the risk of what may happen when seeing a doctor and neither did Henrietta. Little did she know that when going to the only hospital in her area that treated African Americans for free, her cells would be taken and they would live longer than she would, lead to medical discoveries, and sold for billions of dollars.
When writing TILOH author, Rebecca Skloot, was challenged with creating a book of Henrietta’s life without revealing a bias view and still create a book able to suite a broad audience. Readers of TILOH range from young to old, men to women, and republicans to democrats, so Rebecca Skloot’s audience was not very identified. Her views of Henrietta needed to be open, dealing with a topic that people can take many different sides on. During this book, Rebecca has to keep her own personal values hidden from the actual story, letting the readers have their own personal views on the events happening.
As a reader, I anticipate many challenges while reading TILOHL. I expect to be challenged continuously on my views of what happened to Henrietta. Do doctors need consent needed when taking a sample of one’s cells to research for a better cause? If so, what if their cells do lead to a medical breakthrough, should the donor be compensated? Should Henrietta’s family be compensated for her donation? How should Henrietta be recognized for the medical discoveries of her cells? Is it morally okay to colon Henrietta, if the resources are available? Does her family get any authority in what is happening to her cells? How would Henrietta feel today if she had known that her cells where the ones leading to medical discoveries?

Visit Rebecca Skloot's site to learn more.