MDMA should be reviewed and rescheduled due to the fact that the initial scheduling reports were flawed, there are vast medical uses for MDMA in treating patients who have shown no improvements with other psychological treatments, and there is a very low possibility of death amongst users of unadulterated MDMA. Why must we withhold a drug that can be so very useful for the treatment of extreme mental conditions and possibly cure thousands of Americans of their
Ethical dilemmas arise one being the Lacks family had no idea that a sample of her tumour had been taken and sent to George Gey. In chapter three, Henrietta goes for her diagnosis and treatment and signs an operation permit form. I agree Dr. TeLinde’s research was important but not justifiable because he did not properly let his patient be conscious that her cells would be used. One questions whether or not appropriate consent was given because there was not any proper consent. I believe at least letting Henrietta know what they were doing would be the ethical thing to do.
Trinity Community Hospital should seek ACOS accreditation. However, hospitals seem to survive better than independent practices. The costs of many oral oncology drugs have become an issue since the patient still have large out-of-pocket expenses to cover. Many of the oncology patients are covered by Medicare but the 2003 Medicare Legislation did little to help patients pay for oncology medications (Georgetown University, 2014). The expansion of 340B discounts, where oncology drug makers provided outpatient drugs at deep discounts to facilities that met their criteria, also faced lots of criticism since the facilities where to pass on the discounts to the patients but did not (Wang, Tao & Hamilton, n.d.).
Gabor states “No drugs, in itself, are addictive.” This means that it is not the drug that causes the addiction, it is why the people are doing the drugs in the first place, and the way it makes them feel. If people grow up in an abusive household and have never experienced a “warm, soft hug”(305), they turn to drugs because it will give them that feeling. Although some may agree with Mate’s argument, the ways in which he gives his evidence and examples lacks all the necessary information needed in order to make a decision on whether you agree or disagree with his argument. In paragraph four Mate uses a scientific example saying, “Only about 8 per cent to 15 per cent of people who try, say alcohol or marijuana, go on to addictive use.” (305) While this statistic may be true, it is difficult to report on how many of those people of that eight to fifteen per cent are using it because they simply have an addictive personality. For Mate to say that all addictive drug use is caused from neglect issues is not accurate because he does not account for the people who do drugs because they want to.
The only physicians the author interviews in his book involve the topic of genetic doping. How could you write a book on steroids and not interview Harrison Pope, M.D. from Harvard, the leading expert on anabolic steroids? Jendrick dismisses the medical consequences of steroid use, blaming the media for sensationalizing and spreading misinformation about steroids. While I agree that the media uses scare tactics to alarm the public and grab more ratings, his claim that 99% of testicular shrinkage returns to previous size after discontinuation of steroids is more irresponsible.
Proffesor Wu PPD 330 13 March 2013 Interview Project “The healthcare system is headed in a good place, but it will never be accomplished due to interactions of political debates and opinionative individuals” as Dr. Bluthenthal states. Ricky Bluthenthal, Ph.D. is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at the Institute for Prevention Research and the Keck school of Medicine at USC. Dr. Bluthenthal’s specialties in research are contributions that have been in the areas of community approaches to public health, ethnic/racial differences, HIV epidemiology and prevention for drug use injectors. Upon interviewing Dr. Bluthenthal, he addressed that improvement in the health care system is on its way. Between his years of experience in the field of epidemiology and his interest in health disparities, Dr. Bluthenthal shared interesting opinions regarding his profession, making him a great candidate for the interview.
Not taking any action in this case has proven to be a bad decision as was quickly learned in 2004. When analyzing the case using the prudent pragmatism method to develop policy recommendations, one may compare the current case to see what may have caused the situation to worsen. Over the years the amount of vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. has declined, so has the ability to guarantee flu vaccination doses for all who desire one. As it seems that the unpredictability of influenza vaccine supply is the main cause of the supply shortages, the main policy goal should be to bring back more manufacturers of flu vaccinations. Due to the lack of financial incentive to produce flu vaccinations in the U.S., policymakers must decide on a method of bringing more vaccinations to the U.S. from abroad or subsidizing the ones
show "The Doctor's" they had 2 medical Doctors and two food scientists, The claims of GMO's causing health problems was the concern. The Dr's said they know that in the last decade food allergies have tripled and there are more auto immune diseases, food allergies and developmental problems, especially in small children. They all agreed there is no scientific proof that GMO's cause any of these problems but all agreed that it is being studied now in the United States so as consumers we need to know, They do not know the long term effects on GMO's what we do know is that GMO's are banned in at least 60 countries for health or religious reasons. There is so much more to learn from this in the next week as the election gets closer and the campaign heats
New vaccine in this year may harm your health. a. You do not know what ingredients are in the vaccine exactly. b. “No one knows the long term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body of your child”.
Andrew Pollack, of the New York Times wrote a descriptive article, “Engineering by Scientists on Embryo Stirs Criticism.” He provides an example of this altering. At Cornell University, they took an embryo that did not have the ability to become a child, and inserted a fluorescent protein. This gave it one extra chromosome. The fluorescent protein survived, causing the cells in the embryo to glow, and carried the protein into the daughter cell (1). While this was important research, “A spokesman for the National Institutes of Health said the Cornell work would not be classified as gene therapy,” only because “a test-tube embryo is not considered a person under the regulations” (Pollack 1) Right now, that leaves this research as something to be studied, not acted upon