Peer Response Number 2

           I recently read over Eric Lardinois’ blog discussing stem cell research. He explains that embryonic stem cells can be used to grow and develop a very versatile range of human cells. The human body can accept these cells without the fear of rejection. He then goes on to explain the controversy of the topic amongst the population. Many people find it harsh and evil as they consider the embryo a human life. Others believe that the embryo is so young that it cannot be considered a human life and that the use of stem cells is beneficial for movements in medicine.

            Eric posted two articles. The first was pro stem cell research. The article discussed that the use of stem cells will prevent deaths due to dying organs. It presented the ideas that stem cell work can help prevent birth defects, can further research to help other medical causes such as cancer, and it may help learn how to prevent the aging process. Although there are many benefits, there are negative aspects.

            The second posted article was based on the negative aspect of the use of stem cells. It was all based around the fact that stem cell use is murdering a human life and that it is not morally or ethically correct. The author of this article proposes alternatives for retrieving stem cells such as using umbilical cords or fat deposits.

            The ideas of my classmate’s blog are very clear. The information is very concise and revealing of the topic. The blog is even a little compelling. However the author does not side on the topic, but only states he finds the article on pro life more compelling. I agree with that statement as the article made me question if a human life is worth the benefits.

http://elardinoislsc100f09.blogspot.com

Blog Searching with Technorati

         When using the technorati blog search, I was able to find a blog that was related to my informative paper: juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. I found a blog discussing ways on how to cope with arthritis. The main character of the blog is a cook and she discusses ways on how to maintain being a cook with painful arthritis. The blog’s author is Leslie Goldman and her blog is found on the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is about five years old and Leslie Goldman posts about one blog every two weeks on average. She utilizes many hyperlinks and they are most often linked to websites. In this specific blog relating to arthritis, Leslie Goldman does not utilize any other media besides text and hyperlinks, although in other posts I have seen her use pictures. Her post has a much more relaxed tone than that of the blog that is specifically related to my informative paper.           

            The next blog I found off of technorati is specifically related to my paragraph in my paper about DMARD drugs. The author of this particular blog is Wiley-Blackwell, an international scientific publishing business of John Wiley and Sons. The blog can be found on Eureka Alert Blog. The blog post was published to the public on September 28, 2010. Usually blogs are characterized by laid back phrasing and structure that would very much differ from a research paper. However, since this blog was published by a scientific publishing business, the blog’s format is much like a research paper. The tone and style does not differ from my informative paper as it discusses research of using a DMARD and a biologic together to create a successful remission state for a rheumatoid arthritis patient.

            Both blogs were successful in discussing aspects of arthritis.

Peer Response

Casey’s blog was a discussion of the idea to legalize the sales of organs by the individual. Casey believes it to be “legally correct, but ethically wrong”. She discusses the comparison of selling an organ to selling plasma; which is currently legal in the United States. The blog persuades that it is logical to sell organs if one may remain healthy without that organ in an attempt to save another’s life. The blog’s recognized downfall of selling organs is that it puts a price on the buyer’s life, possibly leaving them in thousands of dollars in debt after surgery.           

            The posted article, “Why We Need a Market For Human Organs” discusses an idea that could legalize and regulate organ sales. The idea proposed is to have a model containing a month long screening of health and education. Therefore, the poor will not be targets of organ sales and exploitation will be avoided. The participants would then be rewarded by the government with free house payments, free health care, or other such benefits.

I find the blog to be very clear on its ideas, and somewhat convincing. The most influential aspect was the idea of putting a price on a human’s life. We should be more compassionate as humans as suggested in the blog. I do disagree with the main idea of the blog. I feel that legalizing the sales of organs would place a commodity view on the body and that it should not be legalized to sell organs. Instead I believe more influential advertisement should be aimed at the public to suggest the need for donations. Compassionate should be the means of giving organs to another, not material wealth. 

The Organ Dispute- Is Selling Organs Ethical?

            Organ donating is a great thing, but after reading an article I feel that allowing people to sell organs is taking it too far. Many ethical issues must be taken into consideration such as the following.

Selling a body part may lead people to view organs as another commodity. Our bodies are special and are our own and definitely should never be used to pay the mortgage or be exposed to such risk.

 I feel that it is too much of a risk for people to donate organs such as a kidney. They will forever live with the fear that they may some day need it when facing serious injury or illness.

  I also want to address that poor people will most obviously use the method of selling organs more so than the wealthy. The poor should not be utilized out of desperation for money because that directly takes out the true definition of “voluntary”. Voluntary would mean giving organs without the request of money; a genuine human notion.

           

After reading a pro-selling article my opinion does slightly stagger. Wilkinson makes a great point that each person has a choice on what to do with his or her body. Each day someone does something to his or her body not linked to organ selling that is criticized by at least one person.  Who is to say what is ethical or not to do to your body? It is also hard to ignore the fact that organ selling may increase the supply of organs, which could save thousands of lives. But would the donor’s health be affected by losing organs? If so, to what severity? That is my biggest concern when viewing organ selling as an option.pro-selling article

Henrietta Lacks Opinions

After reading the synopsis of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks I feel it is incredibly important that stories like Henrietta’s be told to the public. Cells were taken from her body without her knowledge and used for medical research. Our population usually likes to believe that we know what is being performed on us and taken from our bodies in medical procedures but that is very wrong. Many doctors have been taking biological samples from many people and using it for medical research. The doctors have great intentions in mind, but our bodies are one of the very few things in this world that we truly own. Shouldn’t we have the right to know where our biological samples are going? The public should be aware of what is happening at hospitals so the “no consent” process can successfully be challenged.

            Writing a book about such a debatable topic for a broad audience must come with challenges. Skloot must decide if she finds it acceptable to take biological samples with no consent or she must decide to keep her book unbiased. Many people do not know the medical lingo so it is important that she be able to easily explain terms in the book. Some people may feel overwhelmed if statistics or “big words” overtake the page while some may feel uninterested if the book is too easy of a read with not enough data.

            As a reader I am anxious to read a true story that will challenge me.  The biggest challenge of this book will be ultimately deciding whether I truly believe it is acceptable to take biological samples without consent.  It will be difficult to understand medical terminology if it is not explained thoroughly. I am very excited to take on these challenges and learn Henrietta’s story.