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.
When the government or the president addressed this issue they were practicing the art of rhetorical discourse by addressing and reacting to the given situation. Without the problem of health care reform, it is just pointless conversation occurring or what we call “small talk,” at the very least. Bitzer explains that there are three parts that make up a rhetorical situation in order for discourse to occur; exigence, audience, and constraints. The exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect or an obstacle. If I use the speech former President Bush gave after the 9/11 attacks as an example, he delivered those speeches due to the fact that there was a situation that required attention, or exigence.
This story of Plautus being cured by Asclepius and his daughter must have meant something to the audiences otherwise they wouldn’t have gone to see it. Even though this play is fictional, Greeks believed it was none fiction and so were led to believe that the God Asclepius actually cured people. It’s useful for a historian to know this kind of play was being performed at the same time that Hippocrates was teaching about more scientific methods of medicine and how they cancelled each other out.Hippocrates’ theory of the four humours influenced the way Greek
In her essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives”, Joanna Mackay explains how legalizing kidney sales would be beneficial in more ways than one; saving the lives of patients willing to buy kidneys, and with legal compensation, helping to end poverty in the countries of those willing to sell. In her essay, Mackay explains that even though there are nearly 350,000 people suffering from end-stage renal disease, an almost always-fatal disease, treatment options are limited exclusively to transplant and dialysis. Though effective, dialysis is an expensive and painful process, making the patient dependent on a machine for the rest of their life. Transplant, however, is far more successful; new equipment and anti-rejection treatments make it an incredibly safe and effective procedure. When a matching donor can’t be found within immediate family members, patients must wait for a kidney from deceased donors, such as old age or accident victims.
A second strength of Maurice Wile's argument against miracles is that it allows a re-interpretation of miracle. Prayer is not about giving God your personal wish list, but accepting what he has given you. If God was to give you something, e.g. cancer, you would accept that he has given you cancer and not question
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
Schlichtmann begins to be influenced by non market forces. He becomes more empathetic with the families who lost their children. His feelings get more intense and his motivating factor (money) is no longer his reason for pursuing the case. He probably could have settled for $25 million with both companies, but he wanted more for the families, so he let his emotions take over and caused the case to go to trial. During deliberations to determine if there was enough evidence to continue with the trial, Schlichtmann had a second opportunity to accept a $20 million offer from Beatrice Foods, again non market forces (his emotions) influenced his decision to decline the offer.
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.
Ibbetson makes a blatant appeal to authority by saying that lack of god in the debate over stem cell research will lead to “…an ending point worse than past atrocities.” Not only does Ibbetson contradict himself by having earlier criticized Bush for basing his stance on stem cell research on his religious beliefs, he also manages to somehow tie Hitler back into the debate, although far more subtly this time around through the use of the phrase “past atrocities.” When taking an outward perspective at the argument Ibbetson makes one can realize how ridiculous it truly is. Aside from actually providing any legitimate solutions, Ibbetson essentially states that Stem cell research is a godless and vile science and in Obama’s support of it he will only succeed in reenacting actions brought forth by Hitler. Based merely on the first amendment alone Ibbetson’s final statement clearly has no place in the real life debate on stem cell research, however aside from that its only purpose is the same as any of his other arguments, to demonize those that actually support stem cells by essentially stating they are going against
For instance, a philosopher named Albert Campus states , “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” Furthermore, some commentator’s voice that physician assisted suicide is requested because of poor care, is simply wrong, only leads to a downhill path, and goes against the purpose of medical treatment. On the other hand, others argue that assisted suicide protects people from pain and is an unselfish act. However, according to the Hippocratic Oath medical professionals agree that they will not give patients lethal