Response to Gregory's Blog

Is Euthanasia an Option?

In Gregory’s blog, he takes the stance that euthanasia should not be an allowed medical practice because “life is too valuable to end sooner than its suppose to, and also people can make remarkable comebacks from being extremely sick”.  I partially agree with him on this one; I do believe that a person should live their life to its fullest, but on the other hand, if they are in so much pain and the only thing keeping them ticking is a machine, euthanasia should be an option.  There’s a point when an illness becomes untreatable and that the patient is no longer in a state of, quote unquote, living.  There are those rare cases that Gregory mentioned, though, when a patient remarkably comes out of the illness; the chances of this happening are very slim.

This is what I think: if the patient is coherent and can still live without the help of life support, euthanasia should not be an option, even if it’s in the patient’s wishes to die. Here’s why; when a patient is on the verge of death,  they often fall into a state of depression which will mar their thinking. Now, if the patient is only being kept alive by  life support and nothing can be done to fix the problem (such as, not surgeries or other procedures) then euthanasia should be allowed an option.  I have one exception to this, if the patient is in a coma, it becomes difficult because there is no way to tell if when or if they will ever come out of the coma.  

As of right now, euthanasia remains a prime scientific debate around the world. Many opinions and stances should be taken into account before making euthanasia an option for patients of the verge of dying.

Demonstration Video on Youtube

How to Make an Omelet

The video I chose is of a woman demonstrating how to make a perfect at home omelet.  I liked  how she stared her speech by explaining why she is demoing. The reason for her demo was that not a lot of people know how to make a good omelet at home. It was a nice way to start the speech and give a little background on why she is demonstrating. After the brief intro she goes right into step one: gather all ingredients. She does a nice job of showing the ingredients and describing what to use.  It is also nice that she lists other possible ingredients that you can use based on your preference and what you like.  At one point she stutters a little bit and it is slightly awkward; this could have been avoided because it looks like it was made at home.  If I was giving this speech, I would have explained how to crack an egg because it is quite possible that the person watching this video has never cracked an egg before.  With most of her other steps though, she includes a nice description of what she is doing and why. Also, she lists common faults people make when making an omelet which give the viewer a heads up to not make those same mistakes.  At one point, she says that she is checking the egg to see if it’s ready and she skims her spatula over the egg but she doesn’t really describe what she’s testing; a clearer description may help the viewer to decide when to flip the egg. Her conclusion is good because she reiterates the main steps in making an omelet but she could do without the awkward eating bit, it just wastes time and it’s not really necessary.

Controversial Stem Cell Research

A current medicine situation in which ethics and medicine have a conflict is embryonic stem cell research.  Embryonic stem cell research uses the cells from human embryos, and those cells are then grown in a lab setting. These cells have the ability to multiply themselves into any type of cell in the body when in their early stages; ultimately, these stem cells can form entire organs that could be used for transplants or repair in a diseased person. Embryonic stem cell research is currently illegal because of  various ethical reasons. The procedure of obtaining embryonic stem cells is considered unethical because the embryo is actually destroyed in the process. People who believe in life at conception are against research involving embryonic stem cells. From the scientific stand point, though, the stage from which the stem cells are extracted is called a blastocyst, and these cells are extracted before the cell begins to differentiate; also, scientists argue that the blastocysts do not resemble and human features.

I believe that the scientific point of view is currently being misrepresented because people don’t realize that research with these embryonic stem cells could solve major health issues. Issues dealing with organ transplants, cancer, and other debilitating diseases. This type of stem cell research is also a gateway to finding various cures to some of the most deadly diseases.

The article on the pros of embryonic stem cell research is the most compelling argument because it presents not only its arguments, but also counterarguments, acceptance of the counterarguments, and then more arguments against the counterarguments. The anti embryonic stem cell research article provides arguments, but the counterarguments aren’t as strong, and they only have one clear, good argument;  versus the pro article that lists several reasons why embryonic stem cell research is necessary.

Anti Article: http://www.leaderu.com/focus/stemcell.html

Pro Article: http://articles.mibba.com/Health/2982/Pro-Stem-Cell-Research

Self-evaluation of Presentation

                After viewing my video, I noticed some good and not so good things about my presentation.  My presentation was on jet skiing because it is something I thoroughly enjoy doing. It was really easy to talk about jet skiing because I am so familiar with it but it may have been difficult for some people to grasp the ideas, especially they couldn’t try it themselves while I was explaining it. I thought I gave a good overview of what you need to know before and during jet skiing; especially points about safety and how to run the machine. Also, I thought I included some fun activities that are easy enough to do on your own when you’re out on the water.

                Besides the outline of the presentation, I noticed some things in my verbal presentation. I seemed to repeat the word, “um” quite often. I didn’t notice this at all while I was presenting, so that is definitely something I need to work on in the future. I think the speed of my presentation went well, along with the tone. There were a few technical difficulties that created pauses in my presentation that I would rather not happen next time. Mainly it was just clicker problems and issues with me not being able to use a Mac.

                Overall, I think the presentation went well. I liked how relaxed the presentations were and how we were able to talk about things we enjoy in our leisure time opposed to topics we would have to research in order to present. This was one of the more enjoyable presentations I have given.

link for photo: http://media.photobucket.com/image/jet+ski/gaby_05cruz/jet-ski.jpg

Response to Natalie's Blog

In Natalie’s blog about organ selling (Natalie's Blog), her viewpoint is that organs should not be on the market for personal profits. I agree with this position entirely. I discussed my point of view on this topic and my points coincided with her points. Although organ selling could benefit many patients, the seller of the organ would probably be selling their organ for personal profit instead of act of kindness for another person. This I feel breaks the rules of ethicality, in my beliefs. And there is no doubt that the government would be all over this idea of marketing organs. Natalie puts it well when she states that “Legalizing the organ market would create controversy.” It would most definitely cause a stir in the economy over ethics of selling organs for personal profit. I want to discuss the question Natalie provided at the end of her blog: “Would poor people be the most accepting of the new law because it would be a source of profit for them? Is that ethically okay?” Regarding the poverty stricken population, I think that would be all over the idea of trying to sell their organs to obtain money to substantiate their lives. This creates a problem; what if these poor people’s organs were not in prime condition? Donated organs should be in optimal health when transferred to another body; you don’t want any higher risk of infection or problems. So, no, in my opinion, it is not ethically okay.

Technorati Search Blog

The first blog I viewed (http://technorati.com/blogs/scienceroll.com) was a blog called ScienceRoll which describes itself as “A journey inside medicine and personalized genetics through web 2.0.” The author of the particular blog I looked at was Dr. Bertalan Mesko, but the ScienceRoll consists of numerous bloggers belonging to that organization. This blog was posted on October 27^th, 2010, which is today; this shows how the blog post are up-to-date with current research and news. This blog consists of many hyperlinks all of which link to other blogs posted by other scientific bloggers regarding the same information. In this blog, the author utilizes hyperlinks and video content to reiterate the main points.

            The second blog I viewed (http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/2010/10/genome-wide-study-of-human-stem-cells.html) was about how scientists recently found out what genes are most important in the embryonic stem cells, bettering out understanding of stem cells. This find will go to help find ways to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s. A team of scientists investigated the 21,000 genes in the human genome to find which ones are key to fundamental use for disease treatment. This blog post came from CellNews and was written on Tuesday, October 26^th, 2010; so the blog is up-to-date with current news in the scientific realms of research. The tone of this blog is slightly more informal than the research paper I wrote. But, this particular blog quotes another article and talks in a scientific tone similar to my paper. The blog is a lot shorter and to the point that my research paper which explained everything in detail. The blog assumes that the reader knows what they are talking about making it unnecessary to define vocabulary and scientific terminology.

Response to Alyssa's blog post: TILOHL

In response to: http://agarrlsc100f10.blogspot.com/

I found Alyssa’s analogy of TILOHL to the Holocaust to be creative and interesting; I would have never thought about Henrietta’s story in that manner. It really makes me think of how unethical it was to use Henrietta’s cells without her consent. I agree with Alyssa on the premise that it is incredibly important to establish  rules regarding morality and ethicality in hopes that this issue will not arise again. I also agree that the public has a right to know about this pertinent issue that had been hidden for such a long time. It isn’t moral of the doctors involved in the research  to hide such an unethical part of their research concerning the use of Henrietta’s cells. The general public should be educated about the flaws of the people responsible for such an act of immorality, as to assume they will better understand why it was wrong and why it shouldn’t happen again in the future.  When Alyssa quotes that “The story of Henrietta Lacks could potentially bring forward similar controversial issues that have not been exposed yet”, it makes me think that the general public may not be ready to hear what really happened. We (the public) are so certain that what doctors and the government do is legit, we never think about them actually committing a wrong. That’s one flaw in today’s society; we put too much trust in those people with higher power, and if they do something unethical or immoral, it is usually not brought to our attention.

The Marketing of Organs

In my opinion, I don't believe that organs should be allowed in the marketing world because there comes a point when it can go too far concerning what can and cannot be sold. If anyone could sell their organs for personal profit it would be mad out there (the world). People would become more willing to sell a kidney than to work the countless hours at their jobs. There also comes a point when it becomes unethical. People who need organs the most might get outweighed by people who have the most money (as how it currently is in our current health care system). Overall, it could really become ugly and I feel that the current process of organ distribution is yes, slow but much more ethical than it would be if organs were sold just like any other mass-sold product.

            After Reading the article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10786211)my opinion is not swayed. I still believe that organs should not be allowed in the market. It would create too many questions over ethicality and shouldn’t even be taunted with. In one quote, the author states that “People should not be stopped from selling their organs because they have a right to do what they want with their bodies when they would not be harming others.” I disagree with this statement because, yes people have the right to do whatever with their bodies, but they shouldn’t ever feel the need to sell their organs for personal profit. There should be other opportunities to earn money without having to sell their organs.

            One point I do agree with is that selling organs would increase the amount of organs available for those who are ill.  But there are still more disadvantages I can conjure up than there are advantages.

picture from: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.clipartof.com/thumbnails/9561-Clipart-Picture-Of-A-Heart-Organ-Mascot-Cartoon-Character-Holding-A-Dollar-Bill.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.clipartof.com/gallery/clipart/customer_3.html&usg=__2NgmFoQbkTXLG3LQdgPbNbWdFwo=&h=150&w=123&sz=12&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=95TPNIbkLX6SOM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddollar%2B%252B%2Borgan%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D553%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=288&vpy=259&dur=1604&hovh=120&hovw=98&tx=103&ty=91&ei=egOsTPbcBZDqnQfoo-DvBg&oei=egOsTPbcBZDqnQfoo-DvBg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Obstacles in writing/reading TILOHL

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a remarkable and intriguing story that should be heard around the world, or at least by anyone interested in the broad field of science. This novel, by Rebecca Skloot, stresses the huge issue of morality vs. immorality regarding scientific research without consent. TILOHL (The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks) brings the issue to the fore-front and informs the readers about the subject of no consent and why it is wrong. It’s a great book to inform the public of the behind the scenes aspect of scientific research since the issue of no consent has occurred before and most of the public doesn’t even know about it (see link http://www.slate.com/id/2243423/).


This novel was created so that the general public could read and be informed about pertinent issues around them that they may not be fully aware of. Instead of watching the news or grabbing the newspaper, a reader could read about a hot topic in the science field in the form of a story. Rebecca Skloot’s only problem may have been finding a way to inform the public without boring them scientific babble or confusing them with technical terminology. Skloot had to come up with a way to make any type of reader interested in Henrietta’s story while still informing them about the why the whole process of obtaining her cells without her consent was unjust.

From how I believe Skloot wrote, I don’t feel I will have any major problems with reading. If the book is set up as more of a story with a plot and it is not just filled with strict stats and data, it should be a fun and easy read that I can become involved in. The only true challenge will be finding the time to read it!