Wednesday, April 15, 2009

ES-201 Post-discussion Euthanasia 4/15/09

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are very complex issues in our society.A lot of individuals may be confused about the difference between the two.The term euthanasia means "good death" in ancient Greek and consists of a physician taking someone's life without causing them pain.This is usually done by giving the patient a lethal injection.Whereas physician-assisted suicide consists of a physician simply giving a patient the right kind and amount of prescription drugs that are needed for painlessly ending their own life.This allows the patient to end their life on their own terms.Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have mainly been looked at from two different angles.Is it an ethical and/or moral way in which to end a human life.And they have also been looked at from a religious perspective.Many Christians have argued against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and some followers of other religions have also taken a stand against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide also.I am against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide here in the U.S. and I would like it to be banned in Oregon (euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in the state of Oregon due to the "Death with Dignitiy Act" some day soon.But there are very good arguments coming from both sides of this complex issue.Some of which I was previously unaware of before our class discussion and my research.Margaret Somerville a Gale Professor of Law and professor in the faculty of medicine at the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law in Montreal, Canada published an argument against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide entitled "The Terminally Ill Should Not Be Allowed to Choose Euthanasia" in which she expresses her thoughts on why euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized.She states that the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide would change our societies' overall view of death.She states that society as a whole views death as a mystery but with the legalization of euthanasia would instead view death as a problem that simply requires a solution through the use of technology.She also mentions that giving all individuals of age the option to end their own life at anytime is just too big of a responsibility.This is because many individuals who are terminally ill or believe they are dying experience feelings of anxiety and fear because they have no control over what's happening.But with the legalization of euthanasia individuals could avoid their fear by controlling how, when, and where they die.She insists that human beings love the idea of control and euthanasia could possibly become an individual's answer to "how can I control my death".This way of thinking could lead to individuals ending their lives prematurely before all possible treatments of their condition have been carried out because they fear the pain, hardship, and hopelessness they may experience in the near future.Patients need to know that their physicians are they to help them and not inflict death.This perception of doctors would change if euthanasia was legalized and create a serious issue of mistrust between patients, society, and physicians.Training current physicians and medical students to administer lethal injections to patients could also result in these individuals taking human life in a routine manner.Of all the individuals who have requested euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide under Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act" since 2005 forty-six percent of those individuals wished to live after receiving the proper care and pain management.This shows that many individuals who may wish to die are actually just in a very vulnerable state in which they are more than likely also depressed and also feeling pain simultaneously possibly leading to impaired judgment.And how a society treats these individuals exhibits that societie's true morals and ethics.Essentially does a society wish to treat and work with terminally ill and/or depressed individuals or send them the message that they are a burden and should simply end their own life.This article came from the opposing viewpoints database.

Contrary to some of the views presented above many individuals choose to present an argument that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be used responsibly by patients and physicians.And that these options would only be utilized in the most extreme situations of sickness, pain, paralysis, and debilitative chronic illnesses and diseases.James D. Torr presents some of these viewpoints in his article entitled "Euthanasia is Ethical" on the opposing viewpoints database.He states that some individuals experiencing chronic illness experience excruciating pain and discomfort but also do not wish to take drugs that leave them weary and incoherent.It is also somewhat unfair to force individuals who at one time were healthy, strong, and totally independent adults to feel like a burden on their family and/or society.They may experience extreme emotional despair through having to all of a sudden depend on other people all of the time.Human beings as mentioned once above love to think they have some form of control over almost every aspect of their lives.Therefore some individuals who are terminally ill may feel as though they have no control over the progression of their illness, disease, debilitation and experience unimaginable amount of fear when thinking about the progression of their condition and the damage it could do.James D. Torr also emphasizes that an individual would have to provide evidence that their life and the pain (emotional and physical) they are experiencing is absolutely intolerable.Explaining that life would only be voluntary ended through euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the most extreme cases when the patient has no hope for a descent life again.Also no one can truly know how much pain a person is in unless they are that person.So the author claims that the decision to end one's life solely rests with that individual in the very end and not with other members of society and/or so-called experts on the subject.Here is one example of a case in which the patient would be granted the right to voluntarily end their life."A mother of seven children, continually exhausted and bedridden at home with a gaping, foul-smelling, open wound in her abdomen, who can no longer eat, and who no longer finds any meaning in her fight against ovarian cancer" (direct quote from James D. Torr).People against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide argue that the lives of all human beings are sacred but this does not take into consideration situations in which an individual's suffering is so great that living seems pointless and extremely unenjoyable.It may be hard to accept euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide as the best option for terminally ill individuals but in the most extreme cases it may be the kindest and most sympathetic response to individuals in extreme pain and/or discomfort.After listening to arguments from both sides on this issue I am thankfully more educated on the subject but still cannot change my original viewpoint.This is due to my religious beliefs in particular and the fact that the idea of euthanasia in general just kind of freaks me out.I guess i'm not exactly the most trustworthy person at all times and I feel like doctors and physicians could have and will continue to abuse this ability to end the lives of individuals.Even though this might occur in only the rarest of cases it has nonetheless already ocurred.With one British doctor being charged for murder for taking the lives of fifteen of his patients against their request while many people speculated that he killed more like one-hundred people instead.I mean who really knows what's going through the mind of a doctor in that position.When they continue to end more and more lives will they get used to it?Will they become desensitized to essentially killing these people?Usually when criminals and serial murderers end life multiple times they simply get used to it making the next time easier than the time before that.Honestly it's hard to really say if Dr.Jack Kevorkian was just a man who wanted to help individuals who were in emotional/physical pain or if maybe he had some sick fascination with killing individuals and attempted to find a way in which he could end life and get away with it.My main reason for being against euthanasia is because of my religious beliefs.I don't think any human being has the right to end their own life.Nor do I think any human being has the right to end the life of another human being because I do not believe our lives necessarily belong to us.Instead my belief that God granted us life leads me to believe that only God should have the right to end life.Here is a link to a website that lists and explains the top ten pros and cons of euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide: http://euthanasia.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000126


Tuesday, April 7, 2009

ES 201 Pre-discussion Euthanasia 4/7/09

I believe euthanasia is a very dangerous and actually disturbing idea/proposal.I would first off be concerned for individuals who are terminally ill but wish to fight on with their disease or disability but these wishes are unrecognized or confused by a physician so the physician gives the patient a lethal injection anyways.Some physicians and doctors have been prosecuted and tried in certain situations like this.Doctors should never have the power to help someone kill themselves.Also i don't believe that most individuals who wish to die are completely rational in their thoughts and reasoning during their situation.Most of them instead are usually depressed or crying out for help.Instead, these individuals should receive the proper psychiatric treatment and/or hospice care for their special needs.I'm against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide mainly because of my religious beliefs.I'm not saying in any way that i've been a devout Christian and lived by the Bible my whole life but it's just wrong to kill yourself before a natural death or freak accident.I believe everyone has a time to die and people are meant to suffer (similar to Jesus Christ) in this life in order to be accepted into the kingdom of heaven.I say natural death or freak accident because i believe those are both part of God's plan.Whereas murder does not fall into the same category for me because that involves one person taking another person's life.But the problem is that life doesn't belong to them and in my mind neither does their own.An individual's life belongs to God in the very end because he created them therefore it is up to God to destroy them.

ES 201 Post-discussion Bridgewater College Alcohol Policy 4/7/09

After reading the alcohol policies of both Bridgater College and Eastern Mennonite University I realized there were two very noticeable differences.EMU was actually stricter on the consumption and possession of alcohol than Bridgewater seemed to be.Meaning at our school it specifically states that the possession and consumption of alcohol on our campus is against the rules.It also states that if an individual goes off campus to drink as long as he/she does not disturb the peace in any way upon their return to campus then they have done nothing wrong.On the other hand at EMU they specifically state that alcohol consumption and/or possession either on or off campus are both against school rules and policy.The class discussion on alcohol in general only reinforced my belief that alcohol can become very dangerous while in the hands of college students, persons operating motor vehicles, or people operating any type of heavy machinery.


I would have to say from experience that i don't believe most college students are responsible enough to drink while also keeping their composure and behaving in an acceptable manner at all times.I mean college is a tough time academically, emotionally, etc.Therefore you essentially have a lot of individuals packed into a small campus here at Bridgewater who are extremely stressed at certain times, still trying to find out who exactly they are, and who are all very susceptible to peer pressure at any time.On paper alcohol may seem to be the answer to a very stressful situation.Plus the whole idea of college is for young adults to learn and be trained for what they wish to become in the future.I think a lot of students forget that they are the ones that will have to be leaders in the future for our country in all aspects of life.Basically one generation after another has their turn to keep our nation running the way it should.And everyone has a part to play in the process no matter how big or small that part may be it's still a role and it is beneficial for individuals to understand their role in society. The NIAAA is an acronym for the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and this is the link to their website: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/NIAAASponsoredPrograms/underage.htm. Many statistics concerning alcohol abuse in individuals of age, underage drinkers, etc. can be found on this website.

ES 201 Pre-discussion Bridgewater College Alcohol Policy 4/7/09























The alcohol policy here at Bridgewater College makes perfect sense to me because of the schools loose affiliation with the Brethren Church.When I chose to come here I knew that Bridgewater was essentially a Christian college and that it's campus was completely dry.I was okay with this then and i'm fine with it now.I don't understand why people here are always complaining about the alcohol policy when they knew what to expect upon coming here.Which they had to have known about the alcohol policy.I know this because i was a tour guide this summer while working in the admissions office here at Bridgewater and they required all tour guides to explain the alcohol and drug policies here at Bridgewater.There is no rationale whatsoever in an individual's complaint about the alcohol policy here.If they wanted to drink they should have gone somewhere else.There are plenty of private and state schools that my friends go to where they drink heavily whenever and wherever they want to.I'd be guessing off the top of my head but i'm pretty sure there are more wet campuses than dry ones in the state of Virginia as a whole.

ES 201 Post-discussion Marijuana Legilization 4/7/09

After the class discussion on marijuana legilization I began to realize that I had not though about all the dangers the government regulated sell of marijuana had the potential of bringing to the table.When individuals buy a pack of cigarettes in the morning they usually smoke that pack and then return for another.It seems to be an American tradition to everything in excess without ever finding a happy medium.If marijuana was sold legally I do not believe this trend would stop.Therefore even if the amounts of marijuana are regulated that would theoretically be sold legally in the U.S., individuals would still abuse this by purchasing the same amount but multiple times and from separate gas stations, convenience stores, etc.Essentially if you think about it most American teens and individuals in the early twenties drink to get drunk.Similarly most "potheads" that people remember from high school didn't smoke a little bit of weed to just relax them for a test but instead were blazed out of their minds almost every day and subsequently accomplished close to nothing in life at the time.After hearing the facts and understanding that the government could profit from the sale of marijuana and that new jobs would also be created in the industry I began to realize another problem.


How many jobs will people lose or never attempt to apply for because they are stoned all day, everyday?Because everyone knows and has seen that smoking marijuana makes people lazy when it is done in excess.And there is really no exception to the rule.Even though marijuana has not shown to be very harmful to one's body like other well known hard narcotics and drugs it can and is still considered to be a "gateway" drug.Meaning most drug addicts use marijuana as their first drug of choice and eventually move on to drugs that have more profound effects and thrills associated with them.And my final concern would be pertaining to individuals driving around and smoking marijuana, or working at their jobs while their high, or even worse watching or handling children while their high.If someone were to look at deaths related to drunk driving I feel that's enough to keep marijuana illegal in this country.Because we already have one depressant that's killing people on the roads (alcohol) so why add another depressant (marijuana) into the equation.In my opinion that would only increase the rate of deaths due to car-related accidents. Here is a website that lists and explains some of the pros and cons of marijuana legalization: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm.






ES 201 Pre-discussion Marijuana Legilization 4/7/09

I've never felt that marijuana use is wrong ethically or morally. As far as i'm concerned it's totally natural because it does just happen to grow on the Earth naturally just like tobacco. Similar to the discoveries of new plants with amazing medicinal abilities in far away jungles and rain forests I also believe that any type of narcotic that just happens to be totally natural was meant to be found by man. Obviously for some reason God chose to put marijuana on the Earth but as far as what he originally intended us to use it for.Now that's another question.Even though marijuana has been found useful in the medical field in treating certain illnesses and conditions.It is also known to be hard on your lungs along with other unfavorable negative effects on the human body.If tobacco companies are and have been getting extremely wealthy for years now selling us a product that has been proven to kill us then what difference would there be if widescale sale of marijuana occurred?They're both totally natural products with equally bad effects.In actuality marijuana can be used to help people with certain medical conditions whereas cigarette smoking and tobacco use in general has no known benefits that come from use.So honestly as far as I see marijuana has more to offer than tobacco and should be sold in the U.S. so the government can profit from it and more jobs would also be created in the new "marijuana industry".This would also allow the government to better regulate marijuana distribution and set laws on possessing too much at one time.Cause if you can't beat the drug dealers and narcotics distributers then "join'em".I don't advocate the use of marijuana but I do belief it has the potential to help the economy by providing more jobs.All in all it's a tough topic to pick a side on because American society has looked at marijuana use so unfavorably for such a long time.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

ES-201 Post-discussion Stem Cell Research 3/26/09




Stem cell research has shown to be a very promising field within the medical and scientific communities. Adult stem cells that have been reformated and stem cells from umbilical cords have shown to be very helpful in the past in treating chronic illnesses and some debilitating diseases.But when it comes to the possibility of embryonic stem cells being used to cure varying illnesses and diseases moral and ethical questions have been raised by many different individuals and groups of people.Because some individuals hold the belief that by removing stem cells from the human embryo that is in very early stages of development (blastocyst) that you are destroying a human life or at least the possibility of a human life.It's obvious that if these embryonic stem cells were not removed from the blastocyst a human being would surely and most likely develop eventually. After all, everyone began their life as just a small grouping of cells (blastocyst) days after their conception.So essentially some individuals believe that by taking embryonic stem cells from these blastocysts you are eliminating a life that "could have been".The argument of whether or not a blastocyst is a live human being is a complicated argument and depends solely on one's opinion of when a life technically begins.For example, the Pope and members of the Catholic church claim that a human life begins at conception, while others claim a human life begins later on down the road when the human fetus is more developed.Because a group of cells can't think, feel, or make conscious decisions for itself right?

Well, while this may be true I heard a statement made by the con side's argument during our class debate that to me accurately portrayed an example similar to the existence of a blastocyst.They stated that if someone is in a vegetative state, cannot act physically for themselves, and cannot make conscious decisions for themselves do their family members just automatically pull the plug?Life should not be destroyed until one can determine whether or not the chance to live has diminished from being a possibility.Many of the embryonic stem cell lines that are already available for use were obtained when couples went through the process of in-vitro fertilization.In in-vitro fertilization more than one of the female's eggs are paired with the partner's sperm in an attempt to increase the chances of a successful fertilization ocurring.But usually a couple will only choose to have one or two children at most and have the other fertilized eggs simply thrown away.Embryonic stem cells can be harvested from these fertilized eggs that are scheduled to be disposed of.So in a way why would we let these embryonic stem cells go to waste?In my opinion before opening the flood gates on embryonic stem cell research the existing lines of embryonic stem cells should first be tested on a wide range of possibly curable disabilities and diseases that many individuals suffer from.And then if there are extremely promising results then we should more than likely harvest stem cells from parents who do not want them and plan to simply dispose of them.But with the many ethical and moral concerns that are circling around this issue I believe it should at least be proven first that embryonic stem cells do what we think they do before we begin to harvest them in higher amounts.I mean if I wasn't sure how a certain company or corporation would do when they first open would I invest all of my stock into them?The answer to that is no.So I don't think we should put all of our eggs in one basket with embryonic stem cells before the proper experimentation is done and we learn more about their capabilities and the processes they can and can't be implemented in.With the supposed ability to clone human beings through the use of embryonic stem cells also arising as an issue in the past it only complicates the situation further.While if possible, the ability to effectively clone human beings would take much time and effort to perfect.Therefore I do not believe research on embryonic stem cells will focus solely on the technology of cloning human beings at least not for now.But down the road it could most likely be another issue that mankind will have to deal with.I agree with George W. Bush that by just doing research on the effects of using embryonic stem cells using the already existing lines is the safest way to go.Because that way we can first learn more about what they do before investing lots of time and money, and it would also help to avoid having to make the life or death decision when it comes to the "blastocysts" themselves.If the existing embryonic stem cells are used then no one will likely argue against it because it's in the past and the chance for a human life to develop passed a long time ago.It is usually the further practice or activity of harvesting embryonic stem cells that bothers the majority of people.Also the fact that the average American man and woman probably does not know very much about the facts of what embryonic stem cells are, how they are harvested, and the possibilities they've been said to have.It's like a lot of other issues in society in that most people are not well educated about the subject either because they don't care or they have no way of finding out.People cannot fully make a conscious decision as a whole without first understanding all of the facts about the subject.Therefore a lot of individuals who are accounted for as either being for the harvest and research of embryonic stem cells, or against the whole process may or may not know or have heard all of the facts about embryonic stem cells.Take myself for example, I'll admit that I do not know and understand all of the stages of development in human beings therefore I don't believe I can rightfully or knowingly choose one side or the other.I would have to understand the full development of a human embryo up until the moment of birth before I could say whole heartedly when I believe a human embryo can truly be considered a human being.Therefore, I believe that many people simply have chosen sides on the subject just to back up there political party, family's views, friends views, etc.And sometimes individuals simply choose a side just out of spite, because they do not like a certain group of people and their beliefs and consequently they automatically choose to oppose them from the very start.If it was up to me I would allow only government scientists (not privately owned corporations) do research on the existing embryonic stem cell lines but I would discontinue and put a stop to the harvesting of new stem cells.This is due to my belief that to steal these embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst is similar if not the same as murder.To me it's simply logical to dispose of these stem cells because couples enter the process of in-vitro fertilization for one reason which is to have a child or children and not to donate embryonic stem cells.Although I do not understand why the possibility of placing these fertilized eggs into the body of another female who is struggling to conceive naturally possibly with the consent of the initial couple.Similar to a surrogate birth mother scenario and like an extremely early adoption of a child. Here is a link to a website that explains some of the pros and cons of stem cell research: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm.

Monday, March 16, 2009

ES-201 Post-discussion Socialized Health Care 3/16/09

The issue of whether or not the United States should implement a socialized or (universal) health care plan is a very difficult question to answer.In our class debate I learned facts about socialized health care plans that I was previously unaware of.By just observing our current free-enterprise health care system today individuals can see and experience obvious flaws in the system.Someone could get severely injured, be told their insurance company will not pay for their treatment, and end up spending their life savings in hospital bills.This happens all too often in our current system because unfortunately the health care industry is a business based upon the principles of capitalism.Even though capitalism has contributed greatly to the growth of our young nation by creating competition among individuals, businesses, and even large corporations it may not be the best answer when it comes to health care.Health insurance companies obviously understand that like other businesses it's survival of the fittest.Meaning their goal is to acquire clients and keep clients who they can use to make financial profits and gains.If insurance agencies like these are put into a situation where they could potentially lose money in the process of paying for a certain medical procedure for a client they will immediately drop the client because businesses are created to make profits and grow not to hand out charity.While this seems to be extremely cruel and harsh especially in situations that cause individuals and their families to become bankrupt or be denied for a life saving organ donation, etc.

This system helps to push more individuals to have the desire to become doctors, surgeons, and to overall work towards being employed somewhere within the medical field.Hospitals and pharmacy agencies also are forced to better their products and come up with new and more effective prescription drugs and treatments.This same type of competitive nature that exists in American business is what forces businesses to essentially increase their production of goods and their profits or to be eliminated and bought it.But even with capitalism helping this nation grow so rapidly I don't believe it should be applied to our nation's health care plan.I understand putting high prices on products such as big screen televisions, game systems, and big homes due to the fact that all of these things are not essential for all individuals to have but merely some of the items that people desire in life.Therefore making it very hard for many Americans to purchase what they "want" but our government seems to provide our citizens with everything they absolutely need except for health care.Our taxes pay for every child to attend public schools while also supplying food stamps, welfare checks, and government housing projects for the American population who is the most impoverished.I'm okay with individuals not being given plasma screen televisions and cars from the government payed for through the tax dollars of Americans.But to not supply health care which is a basic human need is just outrageous and wrong.



If we as a nation have realized that allowing all children to attend school regardless of socio-economic status and have also assisted individuals in feeding their families and helping them pay their bills why would we not supply this last and most important need in human life which is health care.All individuals deserve the right to be educated, have a place to live, and have something to eat so why would we deny them of their health care are we saying we've given them enough and they don't have the right to live healthily unless they can pay hefty sums of money on a daily basis.The individuals of society who we have supplied with public schooling, food stamps, and welfare checks are like I mentioned above some of the poorest individuals in this nation.These are the same individuals who primarily make up the portion of uninsured Americans today.Allowing only the wealthiest individuals in society the rightful privileges of life was an old American tradition that held down certain groups of individuals mainly including minorities.If we as a nation proclaim that every man is equal and has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution then that is a downright lie.We held down minorities and individuals of low socio-economic status from attending school, getting sufficient education in schools, and from having acceptable and sufficient housing and food to eat at one point in America.But most people as a whole at one point agreed that everyone would receive these very barest essentials of life no matter what race they were or how much money they had.So why do we continue to hold down this same group of individuals from getting proper health care and most certainly saving more lives through preventative measures and proper treatments while we now only treat in reality some of the most privileged individuals in society.The wealthy and rich Americans are practicing the old American tradition of discrimination.And now prices on health insurance have risen so much that many middle class individuals also cannot get the efficient health care that they need.Since American tax dollars already help to pay for other socialized programs for American citizens we need to also provide the most essential of all which is someone's personal health.Wealthy individuals who are openly against a socialized health care plan for the nation sometimes claim that they would be paying more money for less quality care.This is not totally true as wealthier individuals can receive health care benefits above those of most others in a socialized plan with some extra fees.Ultimately the majority of individuals would save more money by paying for a socialized plan through their taxes than dealing with the massive health insurance premiums and prices of procedures and pharmaceutical drugs that they would have to purchase straight out of pocket.If the our nation is supposedly one of the greatest in the world then why is it that we cannot even take care of our own citizens and also have an infant mortality rate higher than some third world countries do.It seems as though the idea and common belief that perceives America as being a world superpower and watchdog is nothing but a common myth.With health insurance rates shooting through the roof nowadays and the economy in disarray wouldn't it be a great time if any at all to at least take care of our people's health.Because in my opinion an individual's personal health is rivaled by nothing els. For instance what difference does an individual's level of education, what they eat, and where they live make if they are dead from a chronic illness or disease which could have been prevented but was not.It's like the old saying goes "at least you have your health".Because if you're not healthy then it does not matter what else you might own because you will not be around long enough to enjoy it.People do not take into account that the individuals who fail to receive proper medical care include the common man, woman, and child nowadays.People should take into account that by denying certain individuals proper care you are in actuality sickening or killing a husband, wife, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, neise, nephew, etc.It's time that Americans look past money for once and make the right choice to at least take care of our fellow countrymen and women. Here is a link to a site that lists and explains the pros and cons of socialized health care: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

ES201 Pre-discussion Stem Cell Research 2/19/09

Stem cell research to me is a no brainer.We should pursue this research with a hope of one day effectively healing individuals with physical disabilities and permanent brain damage through the use of stem cells.I think when many people hear the phrase "stem cell research" they automatically assume that all stem cells are taken from developing human embryos and claiming that it's the same as murder.Individuals who believe that life begins at conception are against obtaining stem cells from developing human embryos claiming the human life has already began.I would have to agree in this particular case that a "blastocyst" or early human embryo in development is in fact a human life and to me destroying a blastocyst would be comprable to murder.But I also believe that stem cell research should occur because of the amazing ability of stem cells to grow into and fit into any cells in the human body healing areas with many dead cells.But stem cells should not be obtained through early human embryos but instead through adult bone marrow and umbilical cords at birth.These are both practical and safe ways to obtain stem cells for research and use without harming anyone or having any accusations of ending possible human life.I believe these methods should be pursued immediately in hope of learning more about stem cells and their healing capabilities and using them in a successful manner in the future.

ES201 Pre-discussion Socialized Health Care 2/19/09

The global map that you see above represents the different types of health care coverage that can be found throughout the world. The color orange represents Iraq and Afghanistan's health care that is funded by the American military/government. The countries shaded in gray represent nations that do not have socialized health care. The countries shaded in blue do have a socialized health care system. And the countries shaded in green are attempting to implement a socialized health care plan.I only know the bare minimum when it comes to the idea of socialized health care and all of its different components.And based off what i've heard I don't think it's a bad idea totally i'm just not sure if it's "the American way".I believe that our country being so young but also growing very fast has a lot to do with competition that's created within our society in which people who work really hard are eventually rewarded with nice things and a fairly comfortable lifestyle.So the idea of everyone receiving the same level of treatment kind of throws me for a loop, I mean where's the competition in that?If that's the case in socialized health care then what incentive would someone have to work hard in life if they were already guaranteed the same level of health care that a millionaire would receive but they could receive it by simply sitting on a couch and collecting welfare checks.I'm not saying in any way that all people on welfare are abusing the system but instead just providing a possible example.I don't fully understand all the policies on socialized health care and how it differs from our current health care system but to me giving everyone the same quality of care regardless of income and social status is no doubt a socialist idea and maybe even bordering on the beliefs and practices of communism.Health care is known to be a very valuable thing to be in possession of.But why would anybody work hard their entire lives to just receive standard health care just as no one in their right mind would study their entire lives to become a brain surgeon so they could make the same annual salary as a janitor.Competition and reward is what drives our nation and is the "American way".If health care is socialized then what will be socialized next in American life?It would leave a potential for the values and beliefs that this country was built on to just be thrown away forever.

Monday, February 16, 2009

ES201 Post-discussion Performance-Enhancing Drugs 2/16/09

The topic of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports is a very complex issue.Before our class discussions on this issue and the debate I had a pre-conceived notion that the issue itself was much simpler.But after much thought and discussion on the subject both in and out of class I realize there is no right or wrong answer.Both sides have their pros and cons to a certain extent.After researching theories and ideas for the debate that supported the legalization of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports my initial opinion on the subject quickly changed.I now find myself kind of caught in the middle because I like and dislike certain ideas on both sides.
I believe the first thought that comes to mind when someone hears the term performance-enhancing drugs is "aren't they bad for you".And while that is a very important question it is also a very difficult one to answer.Through this class I have learned some of the initial negative side effects of using certain performance-enhancers such as anabolic steroids and HGH (Human Growth Hormone).But I have also realized through research that no one really seems to know the side effects that are produced from long-term usage of these currently illegal performance-enhancing drugs that have been banned from most professional sports.I was extremely suprised when through research for the debate I practically found a laundry list of legal (over-the-counter) supplements that were not banned in professional sports and were also sold in local stores like GNC and Vitamin Shop to the general public.It was alarming how much information I found from very reliable sources such as the FDA with plenty of research and information stating that these "legal" alternative performance-enhancers were just as bad for an individual when taken in large doses.


And I thought to myself "wait a second...i've seen tons of individuals take more than the recommended dosage on a GNC bought supplement container".This was done numerous times in an attempt to gain an edge on the competition without testing positive for a banned substance.Through research I realized that actions like these showed the same level of stupidity as using a banned substance due to the fact that not many studies have been done to find out what happens when an individual takes a supplement in higher doses than what is recommended on the label.An example of one of these cases with legal supplements that can become dangerous can be read on the FDA's website on their page description of the substance Androstenedione (http://www.fda.gov/oc/whitepapers/andro.html) they also have an entire page of just warning letters they have sent to companies manufacturing Androstenedione or similar products containing Androstenedione (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/andrlist.html). This struck me by surprise while doing my research because I found numerous accounts of the general public and professional athletes using Androstenedione as a performance-enhancer before it was banned by the FDA and the International Olympics Committee.The biggest case I found pertaining to use in professional sports was a significant one because it revealed that Mark McGwire used Androstenedione during his record breaking season in which he hit the most home runs in a season in baseball history.

I believe that more research needs to be done on the long-term effects that come from usage of currently banned substances in sports.Because it would be much safer to regulate professional athletes for example on cycles of anabolic steroids than to find out how many containers of powder they are guzzling a week from GNC or how many "andro" pills they have popped and what damage they may or may not be doing to themselves.There is also an issue with communication between professional athletes and their doctors and trainers concerning the usage of currently banned performance-enhancing drugs due to the fact that no smart athlete would knowingly admit to using banned substances for the obvious fear of prosecution and investigation by the government and the tarnishing of their careers.If these banned substances were made legal so called "clean" players would stop overdosing on "legal" supplements and could at least be properly watched over by expert physicians while taking doses of currently banned substances.Not only would this option be safer but it would help to level the playing field between former cheaters and non-cheaters.I believe this is the only practical option for professional sports if they cannot gaurantee that no supplements legal or illegal are used by any of their players because all supplements are performance-enhancers, if they didn't enhance athletic performance then no one would buy them.So until all performance-enhancers are eliminated from the professional sports scene all players should be administered the same "cocktail" of performance-enhancing drugs in order to level out the playing field to a certain extent.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

ES201 Pre-discussion Performance-enhancing drugs 1/29/09

I believe there is no place at all for performance-enhancing drugs in athletics.Anabolic steroids and HGH (human growth hormone) are illegal for a good reason.Because the results of taking drugs such as these two and others have been proven medically to result in a number of negative side effects including cardiovascular problems.Not only are performance-enhancing drugs bad for the body but using them goes against the whole idea of sportsmanship and fair play in athletics.Fans deserve to see great athletes break records and reach milestones through hard work and God given talent not because they've injected anabolic steroids or popped some pills.To me there is a huge difference between the home runs that were hit in the classic days of baseball by Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth as opposed to the home runs that were hit by Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.Ruth and Aaron set home run records using pure talent and were great at hitting naturally as opposed to the others who came into the league as descent hitters but all of a sudden had gained 40-50 pounds with massive arms and legs that they mysteriously developed practically over night.Individuals should mainly avoid using performance-enhancing drugs because it's a fact that there is little to gain and a lot to lose when using them.But at the same time if small amounts of individuals continue to sneak through the system unseen with only an occassional leak of illegal steroid use in Major League Baseball for example then maybe its time for the league to legalize the use of performance-enhancing drugs.Because why should very talented athletes who choose not to "juice" themselves up because they wish to avoid the physical, medical, and most importantly legal difficulties have to suffer by being put into an unfair disadvantage by these "juiced" up, all of a sudden unbelievable athletes who are obviously physically superior to the majority of the athletes in their leagues.At some point professional sports will have to find a way to either prosecute all its' users of performance-enhancing drugs or make the drugs legal because they cannot and should not leave pro athletes on an unlevel playing field.