Abortion and the Ridiculous Amendment

There are certain issues in the domestic political realm that have always been and will probably always be 'ballot topics.' Every election, specifically but not exclusively the presidential race, these issues become major points of policy objective. Of course, each candidate's platform will contain some form of policy projections depending on the person's party and personal objectives. And again, while these policies and the political promises they embody vary widely, there are some issues that will always be present and for so many elections have ended up being the deciding factors for many voters. Sometimes these hotbed topics are appropriate issues to be regarded during candidate selection, such as is the case in policy regarding taxation and immigration law. But some issues should no longer be issues up for discussion, restriction or reform; and these topics often become part of a candidate's platform because of the strong emotional response they elicit from the American population.

For much of the twentieth century women have struggled to be heard and considered in the political realm. The first national convention for women's rights was held in 1850 but it wasn't until 1920 that women were given the right to vote or stand for electoral office; seventy years is a very long time for anyone to lobby for recognition. (This is not to discredit or leave out mention of the struggle many racial minorities have experienced in the political arena). But I digress.

The point I have been trying to make, that women's rights has been an issue for debate for over a century, is really the root of the real issue I wanted to discuss. In 1973 the supreme court ruled that in the case of Roe v Wade, a woman's decision to have an abortion is a private one and therefore protected by the 14th Amendment's due process clause, which includes a right to privacy. 

Regardless of where you stand personally on the issue, it should at least be easy to acknowledge that the government shouldn't have a say in this and that it should be a private decision for a woman to make. But given that Amendment 1 was just passed the ease I just spoke of is not a common position, at least not in this region of the country. The language in the amendment is ambiguous and ambiguity allows wiggle room that could very quickly solidify into more restrictive policy. Again, its not a matter of what you or I think is right because we have the freedom to elect never to participate. The issue I take with it all is that in outlawing abortion (or at least making it nearly impossible to be able to) the government (and the American populace, because it was an issue up for vote) has been given the power to act paternalistically; but if I remember correctly, no one really likes that type of behavior, right? Ultimately we have subjugated the rights of a significant percentage of the population to that of another.

Would human clones have souls?

The advances that have been made in the medical field truly are astounding, and cloning (regardless of where you stand on the issue of its ethical status) is a remarkable scientific achievement. But as with many other new medical technologies and procedures it shares an issue and concern that is associated with the slippery slope fallacy. It seems to me that in the case of cloning organs this practice is morally permissible, it solves the problems and stresses that accompanies those in life-threatening situations in need of organ transplant. But how can limitations be placed on the distance one is able to go? To me, the cloning of a human being is morally wrong (a view I think most of you agree with, at least thats what I gleaned from our class discussions) but the valid arguments we may have, surely proponents of the rightness of human cloning will have seemingly valid arguments as well. So because there is the potential of something harmful or wrong coming from the ability to genetically clone organs, and consequently human beings, does that mean that we shouldn't encourage further development?
Another issue I have arises from my own religious perspective. God creates each of us with a soul, so when we create a human being how would the soul be accounted for? I guess it could be looked at from thinking that because God of course knew the person was being "created" He assigned them a soul. Whenever I really start to think about this and the distinctions and implications, I get really confused. Its difficult to adequately describe or explain the problem. Because we aren't necessarily given souls in a sense that we receive them, we're just born with them. Right? What do y'all think?

FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

You can view/download your Final Exam study guide here.  (You'll notice that I've already marked the correct answers on the multiple choice sections.  You will need to be prepared to answer questions from the second section in the form of an essay.)

Cloning a lost child

I do not understand the reasoning for cloning a lost child.  I also do not agree with cloning of an entire human being.  Cloning a lung or heart for a person who needs a new one, that I find morally permissible, but an entire human I do not.  I think, though no time soon, the idea of cloning a lost loved one or child is unethical.  Even if a child is cloned there is no way of knowing that the child will have the same personality as the child the parent is trying to replace.  I believe that people have souls and that souls are unique to one person.  That is also my reasoning why I think cloning organs, except for the brain, are okay to clone to prolong a life.

Sent from Windows Mail

Genetic engineering: Taking away what makes is you you

If you think of someone you love right now, anyone, what do you think about? Is it about how perfect their nose is or how symmetrical their face is?  Do you think about how nice they are or if they have a bad temper?  Most of the time our imperfections are what makes us “special”.  Our unique talents and ways make us.  Now think of a world where everyone is the same. There are no longer any undesirable attributes or personalities.  That sounds like an awful place to live to me.  I don’t think we should eliminate imperfections by genetically engineering babies in a lab.  What keeps that from being any different than what Hitler did by selecting only blue eyed blondes were worthy enough to live? I don’t feel he had the choice to determine who can live or die. I see the argument to where we can eliminate diabetes and other medical conditions.  In a sense that sounds amazing if we could rid disease before it ever gets here, but I think things like this help define us. I also think the world would overpopulate if everyone could live to be 103. 

Sent from Windows Mail

Is surrogacy baby-selling? Does the surrogate mother have any rights to the baby?

Surrogacy is the act of using one’s uterus to carry another couple’s baby.  Most of the time the baby is an egg from the hiring mother and uses the sperm of the hiring father to create the fetus.  In some cases the hiring mother may not have a usable egg and the surrogate’s egg can be used.  I do not feel that surrogacy is baby-selling.  If anything I think surrogacy is prostitution of one’s uterus.   It could also be seen as the surrogate mother is taking advantage of an infertile couple’s desperation to have their own biological child.  I think as long as the couple and surrogate mother are in agreement and a contract is written, then surrogacy is morally permissible.  I do feel there needs to be laws put in place to protect the surrogate mother and to protect the hiring couple.  I believe each surrogacy case should have a binding contract that can be upheld in court.  In the case of if the surrogate mother has rights to the child, I believe, since there is no binding contracts right now for surrogacy, that if both egg and sperm are from the hiring couple then she does not have any rights.  If by some chance the egg belongs to the surrogate mother, then as of right now by law, she has the maternal rights to the baby. She however should not be able to keep the biological father from the baby. 

Sent from Windows Mail

Sicko

On the movie “SICKO”, I was very intrigued on how other places tackle the health insurance issue. Unfortunately I do not see the United States ever adopting this type of health care insurance.  I don’t believe that a universally “free” health insurance plan would be the best.  The best way I can explain why I don’t think the healthcare system that the French and Canadians have is a good idea is by explaining how I bought my daughters wooden swing set.  I research and research multiple places online to find the best for my money swing set for my daughter. The prices ranged from 300$ to 3000$.  Of course when I saw the 300$ swing alarms started going off in my head saying, “yup this is the one.”  When I began reading the reviews on the swing set, there were 31 reviews, not a single one was positive.  Everything I read about this product was how cheaply made it was and it did not last.  The higher the price on the wooden swing set, the better reviews I began to read.  I declined to buy the cheaper swing set because I wanted a quality swing set for my daughter, not one that would come tumbling down and be unsafe.  Healthcare is the same way, yes everyone having health insurance would be nice, but there would be no incentive for the healthcare to be better.  Unfortunately the higher the price usually means better quality in service.  The financial competition is what gives the USA their top notch health care and research.  I do think everyone needs insurance and that companies should always provide insurance to their employees, but I do not think universally free health insurance would be any better than what we have now.

Sent from Windows Mail

Universally free health insurance

Truth telling in the medical practice I think is a no brainer. Statistics show that most people want to be told their diagnosis even if the prognosis is bad.  Some doctors argue that not telling the patient does less harm than telling the patient and that is how they justify leaving out certain facts about a patients diagnosis.  In all reality, it only harms the patient more.  Patients need closure, they need to know what is going on so they can make informed decisions about their care and about their personal matters.  If you were to lie, or omit facts, to a patient that could die, then they have not prepared for their departure from life. Initially, and with some patients, they may handle the news with extreme reactions. It may seem as if because they found out about the horrible diagnosis that their emotional status declines.  In the long run, obviously, what they do with the information given to them is up to them. Knowing what is going on with themselves is very important. Once they know and they calm down the patient can make informed decisions to put things in place just in case of their death.  If the patient is not fully informed they may make a medical decision to everything possible with hope that everything will be okay. Even though they may do this anyways even if there isn’t any hope left, but at least they will know what is going on.  No matter what the patient should always be in the “KNOW” of what is going on.  What would you want? I know for a fact that I would want to know everything that was going on with myself if I were ever in this situation.

Sent from Windows Mail

Truth telling in health care

Truth telling in the medical practice I think is a no brainer. Statistics show that most people want to be told their diagnosis even if the prognosis is bad.  Some doctors argue that not telling the patient does less harm than telling the patient and that is how they justify leaving out certain facts about a patients diagnosis.  In all reality, it only harms the patient more.  Patients need closure, they need to know what is going on so they can make informed decisions about their care and about their personal matters.  If you were to lie, or omit facts, to a patient that could die, then they have not prepared for their departure from life. Initially, and with some patients, they may handle the news with extreme reactions. It may seem as if because they found out about the horrible diagnosis that their emotional status declines.  In the long run, obviously, what they do with the information given to them is up to them. Knowing what is going on with themselves is very important. Once they know and they calm down the patient can make informed decisions to put things in place just in case of their death.  If the patient is not fully informed they may make a medical decision to everything possible with hope that everything will be okay. Even though they may do this anyways even if there isn’t any hope left, but at least they will know what is going on.  No matter what the patient should always be in the “KNOW” of what is going on.  What would you want? I know for a fact that I would want to know everything that was going on with myself if I were ever in this situation.

Sent from Windows Mail

Pro Choice

I don’t believe in abortion as a way to keep from having a baby just because you accidentally got pregnant. I do however think that therapeutic abortion and abortion if you were to get raped, etc, is morally permissible.  With that being said I will have to side with Pro Choice if I had to make a black or white decision.  I feel that American, being land of the free, should not be able to choose what a woman does with her body especially in life threatening or traumatic experiences.  I do feel that after 6 weeks of gestation, unless medically necessary, the choice to get an abortion should have more parameters to do so.  After viability, which is usually around 20-22 weeks, I feel an abortion can only be made if medically threatening to the mother.  Even with an abortion at viability all attempts to save the baby should be taken. Planned Parenthood can keep from many unsafe attempts of abortions from happening. They can also be a good resource for counseling and help to the mothers who feel lost or do not know what the right decision is.  In the long run, I believe it is still the woman’s choice with what she does to her body.  She is the one who has to live with her decisions for the rest of her life, not the government or any of her peers.

Sent from Windows Mail

Is football worth the injuries?

There have been a number of deaths due to most popular sport in America. Football has become very controversial among doctors, parents and also the NFL. No one can come to a conclusion on how to better protect these professional athletes and rising athletes from being injured. Some players have injuries that are fatal that lead to death. Although everybody has to leave this world someday, the main issue is that football is killing men or young men ranging from the ages of 12-45. These men are not getting the chance to grow old with their wives or even see their children or grandchildren grow up.  It’s true that there some injuries that are not so fatal but these players sustain a number of head injuries each year that causes CTE.  Football is a contact and injury prone sport like any other sport but the question is it worth the long-term health issues that come with the game. Although there is nothing like seeing fans or students standing up on their feet to cheer the team on, but in my opinion I don’t think it’s worth the health problems that comes with it. Football can do good things for players or young men that are headed wrong direction because it teaches them unity, sportsmanship, and many skills. It teaches them to be a leader which is what we need more of in this world.  I’m not saying no one should play football because that’s their choice. Maybe they should try enforcing the hit to the helmet rule. If more football players tried not hitting the opposing so hard in the head it will prevent them from causing more concussions. Football is way to relieve stress for some people and that’s where all the hard hits and aggression come from. To be honest I think if they made football a calmer sport I don’t think no one would watch it. If I had a son and he wanted to play football I probably will let play even though I don’t support football. I would give him the chance play and I’m pretty sure if he were to get hit hard enough he would quit himself. 

NFL and Concussions, can we make the game safer?

In the NFL, the issue of concussions and brain damage has been a widely debated issue. You have the nfl and its doctors vs the neuroscientists of leading medical institutions around the country. In my opinion, there is no question that football does lead to brain diseases, some of which can be severe.  The only way to make the injuries less impactful would be to continue to develops better types of helmets and means of protection. There must also be more extensive and thorough medical tests to help treat the brain injuries that the players receive. I understand why the NFL fought the allegations year after year that CTE and concussions were not related. This is due to the fact that the NFL didn't want to lose money. They feared that parents would lead their children away from playing football. This would potentially hinder the amount of  future NFL players in the game. This would cost the NFL millions in losses over the long run. The NFL is a business and they don't want that to happen! However, I did not think that the NFL handled their situations morally. The NFL caught and tarnished the reputations of many leading neuro physicians to keep the issue quiet. This was ridiculous of them to do and it was wrong.  I think the only way to help treat the concussion and CTE issue in football is to work together to develope safer equipment and to not allow any players who receive any type of head trauma to continue playing for the remainder of the game until they are monitored by doctors and pass a concussion test. The proper coordination between the NFL and the brain physicians is the only way to make progress with this  issue.

Football is it worth it

Football and our culture is very much related that is why this sport will never change or die out. Football is a rough sport and it creates many injuries due to trauma. The hard-hitting and rough aspect of the sport creates illness that affects individuals after they retire from the sport. The controversy that is surrounding football is the chronic traumatic injuries caused to the brain after the players retire from the game. One of the illness surrounding footballs is the illness called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. This is caused by the chronic trauma to the head and creates protein goblets in the brain tissues of the brain. Knowing all this information why is it that people are still playing this game, maybe it our ever-demanding need to have football in our life. The cultural aspect surrounding football inhibits us to look past the injuries. Our love for the game creates this thin veil without considering the consequences of the game. So this made me come up with another thought. If you were a parent and your child wanted to play football. Would you let your child play or not? If it were up to me I wouldn’t let my child play. Because there is a lot of underlying causes that comes with football. The brain injuries are one thing but the chronic pain and treatments for these injures is another to. As a parent it is the job of the parent to do best for their kid. And letting them play football has a very every lasting effect. The effects are both physical and mental. To me football compromises a right to have a normal life and parents shouldn’t do this. If my child wanted to play football I would let them play at a more mature age. Because a young child hasn’t been full-grown and their development has been completed all the way. Football could affect this, so it is best that one plays football at a later age. Football is really a fun and entertaining sport to watch but it does bring in a lot of social dilemmas and a whole bunch of social cost. So what do you guys think is this sport worth it? Doesn’t this game remind us of the gladiatorial games? So should the game be allowed to exist? Should kids below the age of 15 be allowed to play?

CTE and NFL football

According to Boston University, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a degenerative brain disease that is found commonly in individuals that have a history of repetitive brain trauma. This history can include brain injuries such as concussions. CTE is believed to be most frequently caused by numerous concussions, which is very prominent in football. In 2013,228 concussions were diagnosed in NFL (National Football League) players. In fact, there are on average around 9 concussions that happen per game. However, this does not include sub concussions, which are not commonly reported like “full” concussions are. Recently, researchers were prompted to examine the brains of 128 football players who have played football at least one level. This included individuals who played football at either the professional level, semi profession level, the college level, or the high school level. Of that sample, 101 of those players’ test results came back positive for the disease. In our discussion in class, football was compared to the gladiators in ancient Rome. I think that this is a very apt comparison. This disease is not nearly as prominent in the players of any other sport as it is in football players. Because of this, I believe that football should not be played. My primary reasoning is because 78.9 percent of all individuals who played football at any level and were tested came back positive for the disease. Professional football players are far worse off, with 96.2 percent of all former NFL players also being found to have this disease. An excuse that I have often heard by proponents of football is that the players should know how dangerous the sport is; that people who play football should know how dangerous the sport is and somehow agree to chance contracting this disease or any number of other debilitating brain disorders when they decide to play the game. Many attempts have been made to make the game safer, yet these have often been opposed. Those who oppose these safety changes often claim football cannot be made safer and still be considered the same game.  However, many officials also believe that changes need to be made to the way the game is play. For example, on January 14^th 2014, a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit declined to approve a proposed 760 million dollar settlement on claims arising from concussions suffered by NFL players because she believed that the settlement was insufficient.

The NFL and CTE

The documentary that we watched this week uncovered the long-term damage playing football has on a player's brain. It seems fairly obvious that multiple concussions would lead to some sort of negative outcome or complication but until fairly recently there wasn't any tangible scientific proof of the damage caused. I was really shocked to see the degree to which the players were affected. The harm was so extensive that their personalities changed, they became different people. I can't imagine how horrifying that was for the players and their families. This is such a relevant issue to our course work and it was interesting to see how its being played out in such a popular and public arena. The conflict that arises (making it an ethical issue) is between the health of NFL players and the multi-billion dollar empire the NFL currently consists of.
I think an important "test" as to whether or not this is an actual issue to be taken seriously would be to take the situation with the same scientific evidence and circumstances and consider it within a different context; or more specifically, in any context where the implications of the doctors' scientific findings are not threatening to ruin such a lucrative market. If for instance, these dangers were attributed to riding bicycles, I'm pretty sure people would just stop riding bikes because you would think "Why risk it?" The research has turned up some pretty irrefutable evidence so, no I'm not going to risk the quality of my life. But its a much harder story to sell when people are making hundreds of millions a year on the activity.
I'm a huge football fan and as such I found the documentary very disturbing for the obvious reasons but also when I tried to consider what the NFL could possibly do or what new rules and regulations they could possibly implement to prevent CTE from occurring in its players I felt a little disappointed at the prospect of the game being played differently. And by differently I mean in a less aggressive and violent manner. But ultimately, its the long-term health of the NFL players that really matters because thats what is being put at risk. It was very interesting to consider the need for change in a such a popular sport.

League of Denial

In this documentary, it shows how CTE is being found in football players and how the NFL is constantly denying the link between the two. CTE can be complicated because it can only be diagnosed with post-mortem examinations of the brain. The NFL suggested that there has to be other reasons why CTE was showing up in football players. The concussions could be a factor, but the NFL said that other reasons outside of the sport could have been a factor in causing the disease. They are wanting the scientist who are researching the disease to investigate how it is being caused, and what are the factors causing it. Because of these two questions the NFL has been constantly denying that CTE is caused by brain trauma from the sport among football players. Only recently the NFL has been making changing and have been donating money in the research behind this disease.  

 

I think that the NFL was trying to hide the fact CTE was caused by the forceful hits of football. They are a multi billion dollar company and they will do whatever it takes to make sure they don't get hurt. This is really sad not only for the football players but also for the families. Once the players retire, the family that will take care of them. They are the ones that have to see their love one go through the difficult complications of CTE. Knowing that players were told that the concussions were not severely hurting them, is also very sad. The players were not properly educated on the risks of playing football. Yes, it could jeopardize the future generation of football player by announcing to the public the risks of playing football, but why would you want to jeopardize the lives of the players? I understand that football is meant to be a physical sport, but there has to be ways to make it even a little safer. I am sure that if players were taught the risks of football, they would not want to knockout the other players as hard as they do now. 

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy

   The conclusion to the documentary, League of Denial was simply that Football causes CTE, and CTE causes severe cognitive impairment, including dementia and depression and for those who are affected, their lives are miserable.  So if this is the conclusion that we are left with concerning football players then why do we condone the game so much and cheer for every tackle and wipeout that occurs?  Also is it not already completely obvious that anyone who sustains multiple successive concussions and head injuries will have residual effects from the trauma they have sustained?  Honestly, this has always been an underlying issue related to playing football but now since we have given a name to the issue it seems so much greater of an issue.  Head injuries are a very serious thing, for example, whenever a child falls down you pick them back up to their feet and tell them that they are fine just shake it off; but if the child had hit their head when they fell you instantly pick them up and exam them, asking questions to make sure they have not seriously impaired their cognitive abilities or sustained some other impairment.  Although children’s brains are still developing and are at a greater cause for concern if injured, yet this same idea still holds true for anyone at any age.  Since the brain is such a highly complex and not very well understood part of the body, what could anyone possibly think is so much worth the risk of ruining something that is practically impossible to “fix” when it already works practically perfect, (as far as we know anyway).  If we so highly admire these men performances as football players, then why do we find so much entertainment from the pain and injury they all sustain?  

League of Denial: The NFL's Concussion Crisis

After watching the film, League of Denial I was not surprise in the injuries that can result from playing this contact support. From a non-football fan perspective I believe that this sport should be considered a dangerous sport to play and be avoided at all cost. However, since I know that this will never happen my next suggestion is that the players should each go through some sort of seminar giving information about research that has been conducted about CTE. Furthermore, high school football players and parents should undergo a CTE seminar of this sort. From the film, the NFL players were given pamphlets that deny information about the risks of having brain disease in the future from playing football.  Even though I am personally not entertained by football, I will find it hard to believe that when football players are aware of this information they will be not be bothered by it. Eighteen thousand NFL retired players filled for compensation for concussion-related brain injuries back in 2013. This information alone shows that players are troubled with this issue. On the other hand, their can always be research going towards the treatment of this disease for the die-hard football fans or even the football players that love this game. The problem is clear here, that CTE is shown to be present in a numerous amount of football players. The solution is finding a way to decrease these numbers. 

League of Denial

     In class this week, we watched a documentary about the effects of football on the brain, most notably the relationship between the sport and C. T. E.  While this was not the first time I had heard of the disease and its prevalence within football, I was shocked to learn just how unwilling the National Football League was in admitting there may be some sort of connection between the two.  Of course, with the a amount of revenue the organization brings in, how could I be surprised?  Most Americans enjoy the instant gratification of watching their team succeed--no matter the cost.  Thinking ahead to each individual player's mental health after they have retired seems of little interest to many.
     In reality, if each football player had been properly informed of the effects of football on the brain, how much would that have affected their decision to continue playing?  Their love for the game coupled with fame and money would appear to outweigh the possibility of their long-term health, although of course, they should be warned and allowed to autonomously make a proper choice that is adequate for themselves and for their family.
     As the connection with football and C. T. E. grows, many parents will be unwilling to allow their children to play the hard-hitting sport.  It is hard to imagine a day that the National Football League will be lacking in athletes desiring to play.  College football, too, is loved by so many.   The star college athletes are viewed as heroes by their fans--a winning season the ultimate goal, no matter the cost.  It was disturbing the learn about the few cases of C. T. E. that was found in high school and college athletes.  I had always assumed it took a significant amount of time to develop such a scary disease.  C. T. E.'s effects seemingly change the person.   They are not just 'sick', they are unable to live their lives as they used to....different personalities, exhibiting anger, depression, confusion...many times leading to suicide to relieve the pain.
     Once an undoubtable connection between football and the disease can be made, where do we go from there?  We can't change the sport and maintain its entertainment value while making it significantly safer.  Is C. T. E. just an added risk to the sport that can be overlooked?  Should the National Football League offer better post-retirement healthcare benefits and monitoring instead of essentially leaving it up to the player and their families?  The day that football is outlawed is clearly not a reality.  Should we, as fans, be more concerned about our favorite players' health?   While the findings are clearly disturbing, I will still watch football every Sunday at noon.  Am I partly to blame?

Our Future with insurance companies

I was reading an article in a magazine stating the relationship between obesity and health insurance. The articles showed the relation between people who are on the heaver side are more prone to get diseases and chronic illnesses are having problems with their insurance company. These illnesses include diabetes and chronic cardiovascular problems. So the article stated that people who are more on the obese side or the heavier side tend not to be covered by their insurance. Many of these insurance companies some how try to come up with some kind of excuse so that they do not have to cover their issuers. They blame this issue on the issuers for having preexisting conditions that caused them to have a certain disease. So many of the patients were told that aren’t covered for medication/treatment for certain illnesses and disease. One of the cases includes an elderly old man around the age of 75 who has retired and a veteran. He has diabetes and developed many complications from it. He has many joint and wrist problems and this has decreased his mobility hence making him to gain a lot of weight. This man has to have a surgery on his leg, which is a very expensive process and at first his insurance company was willing to pay for this procedure until they learnt about his weight gain. They said that they weren’t going to pay for the procedure because he was getting to fat and it wasn’t going to be covered by his insurance. Eventually he sued the insurance company and they settled. But there was a struggle to get this issue resolved. Tis person was a veteran; he served with his life to defend our country so we can carry out the same kind of lifestyle. So why did he have to go through all this trouble just to settle in court? So are insurance companies just denying people their needed coverage knowing the people wouldn’t fight back?

As American we are the most obese out of all the people around the world. We also live in a time period were technology has heavy influence in our lives and our lifestyles is more laid-back/lethargic. This mean we are getting fat slow as time goes by. So this means that as American we are slowly lose are insurance. What does this all mean? And how does this affect our future?

Why selling of organs on the black market is wrong!

I am writing my post this week on the selling of black market organs for compensation. I for one don't understand why someone would put their life on the line in order for small amounts of money. I understand that in India and other third world countries that 2500$ would be a lot of money. However, this makes no sense to me. When you donate an organ on the black market, your risk of infection or internal bleeding increases dramatically. The only case in which I would donate one of my kidneys, would be if one of my closest family members was in need for a kidney and I was a perfect match. I would do it then without any second thoughts.
 Another reason the selling of black market organs  is dangerous is because there is no guarantee that you will receive that financial compensation you were promised. Since the black market is both illegal and unregulated, the likelihood of your money being lost or not paid in full is very high. This wouldn't be mentioned in our ethics books if this wasn't a problem these people are facing. Even though the dangers are high, millions of people see no other way out. The only way to solve this problem is to educate the people about these dangers and hopefully she's some light on the problems that black market organ selling can cause. I feel like this position is more of how a Kantain ethicist would take because educating poor people on these dangers does the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.  I firmly believe that the only situation that donating an organ should even cross your mind is with the case of a dying family member. Even then, a medical professional in a regulated hospital is the only course of action one should take in order to secure ones safety and reduce the risk of potentially fatal complications. Once again I am firmly against the illegal selling of organs for financial compensation. There should be educational programs established to warn people of these dangers.  The last thing we need to do as a people is to make people continue to think that selling organs for  money by non professionals is okay and safe to do. That is my position on the matter!

Healthcare: U.S vs Canada

 

Is the United States of America health care system better than Canada’s? I say no, with there being up to millions of people in the America living without health care and lots of others not happy with their health care services. I do believe that we need that we need a change in the health care system and it needs to be more like Canada. Canada’s health care system is a group of socialized health insurance plans that provide coverage to all Canadian citizens. It is publicly funded and administered on a provincial or territorial basis, within guide lines set by the federal government. In Canada instead of paying insurance premiums to different insurance companies, the government is only the insurer. It is against the law some areas in Canada to pay out of pocket to receive better service. The government is then able to make sure that wealthy people don’t get better services than others.

The next question is should America adopt Canada’s health care system? Most people feel that if we adopt Canada’s health care system the quality of health care services will go down. People other than doctors fear that if doctors are told what to charge patients then the physicians will not compete for services, and they will stop giving their overall best care so they receive the most money. And maybe the health care system will try and compete government ran programs but that’s if the government pays for health care. They say another reason most Americans don’t want to adopt Canada’s health care system is that health services might need to be limited to stay within budget.  Canada’s government limits its health services by cutting out the high costing experimental procedures.

 

With the way the health care system is set up in the United States most Americans are insured by their employer and that’s if they have a job. Those that do receive insurance from their employer most of the time do not receive good health care services from the employer. So they have to settle with what they have until something else comes along. Some employer’s health insurance is so crappy their insurance only pays for half of it and they expect you to pay the other half and for those already living in poverty or middle class workers can’t afford to pay it. For example if someone needs a heart replacement and the cost the services are ranging from 30 to 40,000 dollars where does the insurance company expect them to  get this type of money from. So how do you guys feel about this………

Behind the Affordable Care Act

     After hearing Americans complain about the new Affordable Care Act, and after discussing medical insurance in class, I decided to investigate the details of this new law that most people despise so much. I found that this Act is exactly what Americans needed to offset the dominance that the insurance companies have over the lives of the American people. According to the Affordable Care Act (Read the Law), insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions, preventative care is completely free, small business owners that must offer health care to their employees will receive a tax credit in order to offset the new expense, and patients  now have the ability to appeal to insurance companies that deny the cost of  their treatment. This new law sounds like everything this nation has needed for decades. Yes, people have to pay for insurance now, but if people want insurance in America (which the vast majority of them do), they are going to have to pay for it whether the Affordable Care Act is there or not. I think this new law will do wonders for our country in providing millions of Americans with coverage that they desperately need, as well as making sure that insurance companies are treating their customers fairly. I understand that small business owners are inconvenienced by having to supply their employees with health care, but they will receive all of that money back in their income taxes. Personally, I hope this law stays around for a long time. What do you guys think?

References 

Read the Law. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2014, from    http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/index.html

Healthcare for All

Having good healthcare coverage is one of the most important things each and every one of us can do for ourselves and for our families. Its one of those monthly bills that seems like such a burden, such a pain, until you or a loved one actually need it. No one likes to pay a high premium but anyone who has ever had an appointment with a specialist, has ever had a surgical procedure or a trip to the emergency room knows what the astronomical bills associated with them looks like; it requires a moment of silence and then a slap back into reality as you gain an awareness that without your health insurance policy you would be, if not definitely then most probably, covered in debt for the rest of your life. But this is a burden and worry not shared by most other developed countries. It seems odd that in a country built on democracy, wealth and a sense of solidarity, getting care that someone needs and often when their lives depend on it is something that could potentially render them indigent. So why is it that the United States differs so greatly in this respect compared to the whole of Europe, Australia, Asia, South America, etc...

Well, for one, its really difficult to make policy changes that would take away a multi-billion dollar business from corporations whose infrastructure is so delicately intertwined with that of the domestic government.

While there is no singular reason to blame for this mess, I think a couple of factors could or may be playing a role; two things actually that combine into one major obstacle to the United States ever instituting universal, government run healthcare. I think that our sense of solidarity, of which I mentioned earlier, is very superficial. And the reason for this, aside from the obvious (greed), could very well be the size of our nation. Many countries are the size of one of our states. We are spread out and that takes the problems and suffering of our fellow countrymen out of our immediate view. Out of sight, out of mind right? Its easy not to take pity on people with an issue that you don't ever come into direct contact with. I think we lack a sense of community and thereby the collective, communal consciousness that characterizes so many other countries. The second factor that I think is at play here is the overshadowing role that lobbyists play in policy decision. In the film someone mentioned that the American people are scared of their government but in many other developed countries (I think this was in reference to France) the government is scared of its people. This means that other governments do things (like provide access healthcare) to keep its people happy. It seems like the American democratic system is a little off balanced.

But this needs to change, and seeing a way out is difficult in the current political system.

Black Market Organs

       In class we discussed a case study about the black market for organs. A poor ricksaw (taxi) driver in India sold his kidney to get money to pay off his debts and hopefully live a comfortable life. He was not paid in full and the surgery caused more complications, deteriorating his health. Sadly many poor people in India lack education and don't understand the risks that come with living with just one kidney. I could not imagine what this man is going through. He was suppose to get a better life by selling his organ, but only got hardship. Many corrupt doctors in India are trafficking people to sell their organs. This is just so sad in so many ways. With no education and barley and mean of money, many people in India and the surrounding countries resort to selling their organs. In this article I read, people in Nepal are being targeted for this so called trafficking. The middleman goes to countries around India, trying to find people who are willing to sell their organs. Sometimes people are abducted and are forced to remove their organs. Obviously this is highly illegal in America because of a law passed in the 1980s. But, if you were in the position of the man in the case study, what would you do?

        Having the knowledge that I do, i would never sell my organ no matter what kind of offer is given to me. I would find another way to get the money. I could not live with that fact that i'm harming my own body just to help another. For a close family member, yes my opinion will change. I MIGHT think about donating a kidney, but as for selling, that will never happen. Like I said in class, my cousin's father in law, who is a very rich man, went to Sri Lanka and got a the kidney he needed when both of his kidney's were on the verge of failing. Now he is a perfectly healthy man. But being a good Samaritan, he is still in contact with the family and tries to support them in any hardships that the person who donated has.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/world/asia/freedom-project-nepals-organ-trail/

Healthcare for a Killer.

       We read a case study in class about a man, Horacio Alberto Reyes-Camarena, who was sent to death row for stabbing an 18 year old girl and dumping her body near the Oregon coast.  However, this man is currently receiving high-quality and lifesaving dialysis treatment, for his failing kidneys.  This kind of treatment is very expensive and time consuming, (for the nurses that must provide the treatment) that many other (“non-criminal”) people desperately need as well, yet simply cannot afford it.  Meanwhile a convicted killer is simply receiving this costly, and lifesaving treatment completely free without any expense to him.  Obviously this is not the only case in which a convicted felon has received similar treatments for no cost, in fact most of these institutions have free, top of the line healthcare for their inmates.  Yet nothing is really ever “free” so who is really paying for all of this expensive healthcare for these inmates?  The taxpayers of course; all of the working class, tax paying Americans fund the maintaining and up keep of the healthcare for convicted felons.  Personally, I find this to be downright absurd.  We should not be required to pay for the healthcare and lifesaving treatments for those people who we define as being heinous beings that do not even receive many of the basic human rights.  If these criminals are heinous enough to believe that they somehow have more of a right to life than another human being life, then why must we pay to keep them alive when they are responsible for taking away the lives of those whom we love. It is said, that ‘’All men are created equal.” I do firmly stand behind this statement presented in the constitution and believe that all men and women regardless of race, income, or gender should be entitled to the same benefits and opportunities. However, when a human being takes life and those matters into his own hands and has the audacity to end a life of another, they are no longer considered a beneficial part of society. Instead of giving back to the greater good, they are taking away from it. I believe that they do not deserve the same benefits or privileges. I am not inferring that they have lost the path of redemption, but I do believe that their road should be a lot rockier than someone who has been a victim of this crime. For example, hypothetically, John has been convicted of countless crimes ranging from petty theft to public drunkenness. One night he deliberately decides to go into Jane’s (his neighbor’s house) and murder one of her 3 children. Jane is a single mother who can barely support her 3 children and elderly grandmother- much less provide a substantial amount of money for insurance. After this unfortunate event, Jane is left traumatized without insurance, while John is able to soak up the benefits while in prison. This example may seem to be extreme to us, but instances happen like this all the time. This is not just, particularly for a country that prides itself on justice. 

Health Care in America

As we saw in the film Sicko, in America some patients go through life threatening situations that involves immediate healthcare yet are denied because of no health care insurance or because their insurance company does not cover whatever treatment that they need. Huffingtonpost states that, President Obama pointed out that a survey found that over the last three years, more than 12 million Americans were either refused overall coverage, refused coverage for a specific condition or subject to higher premium costs. We all are aware that there are a plethora of people in the United States that die because of conditions such as these. Yet, our responses to allowing more accessible health care to all citizens is that it will cause:  Increase taxes, lower the quality of treatment and medications, or even something more chaotic as in lowing doctors paying! 

In recent Kaiser Health News, Illinois patients with Medicaid are denied new drugs for Hepatitis C. This drug is curing Hepatitis C, but Medicaid officials are preventing sicker patients from getting this drug.  Also,  states that Federal law requires Medicaid programs to pay for FDA-approved drugs from certain pharmaceutical companies regardless of cost, but allows states to restrict who can get them.  So on one end of the spectrum we have people that are struggling to get  coverage for drugs that they can not afford; however, we have people that are in prison who are getting all the healthcare services that they need. Marketplace health care reported that the nation spends more than $6.5 billion every year on healthcare services for the men and women who are incarcerated. They go on to say that this is a reason why some inmates come back after being released from prison. Shocking right?

I am not trying to say that the government shouldn't pay for prisoners insurance only that if they can afford to take care of the criminals why not the innocent? As what was mentioned in the Sicko film full healthcare is given to terrorists that are in prison. Why not the woman who works hard here in America but simply cannot afford the breast cancer surgery that she needs?

Basic health care for all.

        Personally, I think that all American citizens should have some form of basic health care coverage, regardless of their income. As it stands currently, all hospitals, both public and privately funded, are required by law to administer treatment to all patients in the event of an emergency, regardless of the patient's insurance status or ability to provide financial recompensation. In addition, publicly funded hospitals are also required by law to treat their patients even in non-emergency situations without regard to their ability to pay. However, private hospitals are not held to the same legalities as public hospitals, and can refuse to treat a patient who does not have medical insurance, or even evict the patient from the hospital once emergency treatment is no longer necessary. This leaves patients without insurance with serious, if often non-fatal, diseases and medical conditions that are left untreated due to the expense of the corrective medical procedures. Indeed, hospital bills can create immense financial strain on uninsured patients. In many instances, hospitals have resorted to filing lawsuits against their patients, placing liens on their houses or garnishing their wages. Many of the citizens who lack insurance do so simply because they lack the ability to pay for it, and these measures of collection cause them to become even more destitute. Meanwhile, the state of Texas alone pays 1.35 million dollars annually for the dialysis treatments of its prison inmates. If we can pay for the treatments of convicted criminals, then surely we can afford some measure of treatment for our less than fortunate.

Sicko……….. Michael Moore Documentary

Sicko is a documentary by the infamous Michael Moore. In the documentary Moore examines the American Healthcare System and compares it to other countries like France and Cuba.  It should not come as no surprise to those familiar with Michael’s work that he takes a very strong political liberal position on the issue of healthcare, and the stance on universal healthcare in France, Cuba, and Canada. Even if you disagree with Moore, Sicko is worth watching for its crazy and disturbingly accurate portrayal of the fallings of healthcare in America. I’m not saying France, Cuba, and Canada have all the answers nor do they have the perfect system but in examining the way we do things, Moore makes us look in the mirror and seriously question the way we take care of our own citizens.

Moore doesn’t hog the camera he actually lets real Americans tell the story of how the government played with rescue workers lives and our broken healthcare system. Here are the stories:

Financially crippled by co-pays and deductibles, one couple must sell their family home and move into their daughter's basement.

Another woman has her health insurance retroactively cancelled because she forgot to disclose on her application that she had years ago suffered from a common yeast infection which was completely resolved with a prescription cream.

Doctors believe a man suffering from kidney cancer could be saved with a bone marrow transplant procedure, which is denied by his insurer. His family cannot afford the procedure out-of-pocket, so he forgoes care and dies shortly thereafter, leaving behind his wife and young son.

A young mother calls 911 and has the ambulance rush her feverish 18-month-old daughter to the nearest emergency room, only to be denied care because it was a non-network hospital. By the time the insurance issue was straightened out, it was too late to save her daughter's life.

A sick and disoriented woman is discharged from a hospital and dumped in front of a homeless shelter. She is wearing nothing but a hospital gown and wanders aimlessly up and down the street until someone from the shelter sees her and approaches her to assist. It turns out that the hospital had discharged her because her insurance benefits had run out.

Sicko was a great documentary for one because it a thought provoking documentary. He showed you how our healthcare system was broken and he did a great job at convincing viewers that they shouldn’t be satisfied with the way our health care system is being ran. Moore’s film is a call to action for the American Government. While watching Sicko I really questioned staying in America.