Response to Leland Hyman's Fatal Screening Blog

I had never heard of fatal screening before reading Leland's blog post - http://lhymanlsc100f009.blogspot.com/. After reading the post, it opened my eyes to a completely new idea - that doctors can now test the DNA of an unborn fetus through non-invasive means to see if there are any genetic defects in the fetus. I think Leland did a good job presenting both sides of the argument.  I like how Leland said that he supports the technology, but "very hesitantly".  My opinion on the issue, although I am still fairly uneducated on it, is very similar.  The technology basically gives parents freedom to choose whether or not they want the child, which is scary.  But on the other hand, if a parent doesn't have time, money and other resources to raise a child with a very serious genetic defect, this technology could be very successful.  Overall, Leland did a nice job educating the reader on the issue and arguments for and against it. 

Organs For Sale?

Being an organ donor, to me, is one of the most selfless things a person can do.  It is also very easy.  All you have to do is sign up on when you get your license.  It's cool that something so easy can save someones life.  Selling organs, on the other hand, is completely different.  Although there are some ethical issues that come to mind when thinking about organ selling, I believe that people should have the right to sell their organs.  According to this article (http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n2/kidneys.html) written by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez, for every 100,000 transplant operations needed each year, only 10,000 are performed.  This shows us that there is a high demand for organs, but not enough given up for transplanting.  This is where the right to sell an organ could be crucial.  If people are allowed to sell organs, the gap would be closed between organ transplants needed and organ transplants that actually happen.  

Currently, people are allowed to sell their bodies in many different ways.  Pornography is an obvious example of this.  A person can also sell their plasma and sperm as a way to make money.  I don't see why selling an organ would be much different than any of these.  

After reading Martin Wilkinson's article in BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10786211), I found that we have a similar stance on the issue.  For most people, whether it is good or bad, making money is very important.  Offering money for an organ is probably the best way to make the demand meet the supply.  I thought it was interesting that when Iran gave compensation to kidney donors, the supply surpassed the demand.  I think if the U.S. did something similar to Iran, we could see the same effect.  Almost everything Wilkinson said in his article was paralleled with my opinions.  In the end, I am not saying that I would sell an organ, but many people in the country would be interested in making money any way they can, and in turn could save many lives.

Response to Eric Larinois' Ethics and Medicine Blog

Eric wrote his blog about embryonic stem cells, and why or why not we should utilize them.  Eric did a nice job presenting both sides of the issue, and he showed why people support and despise stem cell research.  One of the positives to stem cell research is that the cells can create a perfectly good organ or body part for someone in need.  One of the negatives is that you basically have to kill a fertilized embryo.  This is a very compelling argument.  I agree with Eric on this issue. One of the arguments posted in his blog was "that to kill one potential human being to save another cannot be justified." This argument stood out to me, and is the main reason why I would oppose embryonic stem cell research. 

Technorati Search

For the first blog I chose a blog related to steroids in sports, and this one is exclusively about steroids in baseball: http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/ . The blog is basically all news relating to steroids in Major League Baseball, and includes timelines, news, stats and more.  The blog was created by George Godfrey, and it has been active since 2006. The author seems to create posts whenever there is news in Major League Baseball relating to steroids. So in 2006, there were many posts because that is when steroids in baseball were most popular, and posts have declined a little bit since then.  The blog is very complex, and includes many hyperlinks, pictures and even has its own search engine. The blog also uses plenty of media coming from other sources, but most is created by George Godfrey himself.
For a specific blog, I chose to do my research on my persuasive speech topic of medical marijuana. I found a blog post that is about legalizing Prop 19 in California, which would legalize medical marijuana for those in medical need. Here is the link to the blog: http://my.firedoglake.com/valtin/2010/11/01/two-easy-reasons-to-vote-yes-on-19/ . The author of the blog is Jeff Kaye, and it has been active since November 1, 2010.  This particular author, Jeff Kaye, seems to be pretty active in the blogging world and posts a new blog two or three times a week.  He uses a couple of links in the blog, one is a picture that I have attached and the other is a link to a study done on race and marijuana possession. The writing style is quite different than a research paper format.  It is very opinionated and displays only things that support his arguments.

Self Review of Demonstration Speech

I think I did a pretty decent job with the speech.  First of all, my introduction wasn't as good as it could've been, however I think many kids in the class could relate to it.  I'm not sure that it really grabbed the audience's attention and I could have used more enthusiasm while opening my speech.  I was also a little nervous, which is natural, but I was moving around too much.  I think the content of my speech was pretty good and easy to understand.  The main idea was to get the audience involved, and I think that happened.  My eye contact was limited because I had to look at my own paper airplane, but in the rest of the speech I did pretty well with eye contact.  I noticed a couple things wrong with the end of the speech.  In my conclusion I never really stated the relevance to the audience, which I planned on doing beforehand. The main things for me to improve on are being more enthusiastic and using more emotion while speaking, and work on opening up and wrapping up my speech better.

Response to Jess' Organ Dispute Blog

After reading Jess' blog regarding organ selling, I felt that we have similar views on most of the issue.  She used a lot of good sources to back up her opinions.  Jess did a good job finding articles that show both sides of the issue so she could get several different outlooks on the issue.  With such a controversial topic, there are always going to be arguments supporting both sides.
Jess talked about how our bodies are special, and using them to make money is considered wrong by many.  But there are always people selling their bodies for different reasons, and this could be just another example of that.  I thought the article Jess used that supported organ selling was pretty interesting though, and I could see how that could sway her views.  Overall, she did a nice job.

Ethics and Medicine

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a common illness among war veterans and many other high-stress jobs.  PTSD can also occur following any frightening event in a person's life.  There are many treatment facilities and programs for people experiencing PTSD, and also many other forms of treatment.  A common treatment is a medicine called Propranolol.  Propranolol is used to treat heart problems and anxiety, and is now used to treat PTSD.  The drug blocks adrenaline, which is the hormone that causes people to be frightened and shocked.  The BMJ Best Treatments reported that this drug can consolidate emotional memory and weaken emotions attached to memories.  This is where all the ethical issues come into play.
On one side, people struggling from PTSD may be in need of this drug because they can't live with an experience they've had.  Forgetting some emotions may be better than living with memories that they can't get over.  On the other hand, the drug can cause users to lose emotions, and lose touch of who they really are.  Family members have become very worried about this drug, because it may completely change the user of the drug.
The following article expresses some of the strengths of using Propranolol in PTSD patients.  It is based on a couple of studies. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/729444
This article discusses the other side of the story. http://bioethics.net/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1338. If you scroll down to the Basic Ethical Issues section of the article, you can find some solid arguments against the use of Propranolol.
Although the issue of Propranolol in PTSD is fairly uncommon, I found it very interesting.  In my mind, it is up to the patient dealing with the anxiety and stress to ultimately decide if they should receive the drug or not.  They know how bad the situation is, and should be the ones making their own decisions.

Demonstration Evaluation

Here is a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fri52p1eRM

For this activity, I chose a video on solar energy.  In this video, there are a few scientists at Argonne National Laboratory describing what solar energy is, and how we can accomplish a transformation to achieve it.  I have always been curious about energy; what exactly it is and how it is created,  so I chose to watch this video.

In the video, the creators did a good job using graphics along with the scientists speaking about the topic.  This allows the viewer to get a good picture of exactly what the scientists are talking about.  The scientists did a good job doing their job: teaching us what solar energy is, how it works and how we can benefit from it.  Obviously they have some bias towards solar energy production because they are working at a lab in which the main goal is to produce solar energy, but it is for the viewer to decide whether or not they agree.  

The video was pretty convincing to me, and I didn't hear many drawbacks in the speakers' presentation.  However, with such a complex issue like solar energy, it will not be easy to achieve.  These men are obviously experts on the subject, but there are many people who believe that solar energy is a stretch.  I found one account of the disadvantages of solar energy at http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm .  This writing by Donald E. Simanek looks at many hazards of solar energy.  

In the end, I think the video was very effective and very well put together.  From the viewpoint of a scientist working on solar energy, I think it was about as good as it could be.

Response to Dallas Lewallen's TILOHL Blog

After reading Dallas' blog post, I felt like we had a similar viewpoint on most of the material.  He talked about how controversial and touchy the subject of consent in medical research is and how we need to be more educated on it.  If we are more educated on it, it will probably benefit all of us.
The links that Dallas provided in his blog were very useful and on subject.  The one that brought me to Rebecca Skloot's website was convenient because it taught me more about her goals and reasons for writing TILOHL.  The video of Skloot speaking to a group of students from Galluadets University was also helpful to me.  It showed Skloot in a different aspect, and I respect the fact that she is willing to speak openly about a controversial subject.
As I said earlier, I agreed for the most part with Dallas on what he believes about TILOHL.  His post was clear and simply written so it was not hard to understand what his main points were.  Overall, Dallas did a solid job responding to TILOHL.

Here is a link to Dallas' post:  http://dlewallenlsc100f10.blogspot.com/

Obstacles in writing/reading TILOHL

After reading the synopsis of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, I think her story could be very useful to the public.  I think there is a lot to be learned, and maybe even some things that could be changed about modern medical practices.  There are several dimensions that affect the story, including race, that wouldn't hurt for the public to take a look at.  The main subject is obviously medical consent, and I think it is useful to educate the public on what goes on and what we can do about that.
As I said earlier, there are many dimensions to Henrietta's story.  Rebecca Skloot has a lot to cover in writing a book about Henrietta.  One of the challenges of writing any book is writing a story that will have an affect on the reader.  This means writing in a way that will make the reader think about what they are hearing, and develop thoughts and an opinion on it.  Another challenge for Skloot is covering all aspects of the story and reaching out to many different sources.  This is necessary to get a good overall view of what happened and the many affects it had on the people involved.
I am thinking there will be some personal challenges while reading TILOHL.  The most important factor for me will probably be developing my own opinion on the story.  I am assuming that, since she wrote it, Rebecca Skloot is passionate about the story of Hentrietta Lacks, and the story will have a bias towards her opinion.  As a reader I will take that into consideration, but also develop my own viewpoint on the issue of medical consent.