Euthanasia

The other day in class we spoke about euthanasia and recent events in my life made me think about it. In some countries Euthanasia is allowed but not in the United States. If someone discovers that they have a terminal illness that they will die from, they may feel like they just want to die now instead of dealing with the pain and imposing that suffering on their families. Families won't only suffer mentally but financially as well many times. No person would want to go from being able to take care of themselves to having to rely on doctors, nurses, family members, and maybe even machines to keep them alive. On the other end, the person may be depressed and decide to have a Physicians Assisted Suicide just in the spur of the moment. A person may want to not place the burden on their family or be seen in such a state. Think about people who are "brain dead" or "vegetables" who will never, ever recover and must live the remainder of their "life" on life support. I know that if I was that way and there was absolutely no chance I'd recover I would want my family to let me go. It would be more painful to watch me in that state than it would be to let me go and be able to accept my death. I feel that if euthanasis was allowed in America, the person whose choice it was would have to go throguh a lot of counseling in order to make sure that is what the person truly wanted, not depression talking. It is a gray area because everyone is different and so is each situation. It is hard to make a law allowing it when it is likely some people would just want to use it to commit suicide and others would want to use it to alleviate their pain and family's suffering. I don't think it will ever be allowed in the U.S. since there is way too many uncertainities.

Should mentally ill be able to vote?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/mentally.ill.voting.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

For some reason I thought this was posted around the election but I only saved it as a draft. Anyway, this article was very interesting and more or less just talked about state advocates trying to help people who had a mental illness register and be able to vote. However, on absentee ballots people who help you are supposed to sign their names but are not allowed to influence your vote. One of the big arguments against allowing this is that people helping the disabled vote could be influence the vote or putting who they'd like to win. Only eleven states do not have laws limiting voting rights based on competence. Experts said that since mentally ill rely on the government so they should be able to vote. What do you think? I think that since America is suppose to guarantee equal rights, all citizens should be able to vote. Even if they are not able to closely follow an election, they are still entitled to vote. There are plenty of people who barely follow the election and go out and vote for whomever they like. No one should be able to decide who is "able" to vote. If a person is willing, then they should be allowed to.

Breast Cancer

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/11/24/healthmag.mammograms.breast.cancer/index.html?iref=newssearch
A recent study that was first going to be just dismissed proved to show some insight into the world of breast cancer. A team led by Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, studied two different groups of women from before and after Norway stepped up its mammogram screening program in 1996. The first group consisted of 119,000 women between the ages of 50 and 64 who had routine mammograms every two years (3 between 1996 and 2001). These women were compared with a second group of 110,000 consisting of the same age group in 1992 but had only one mammogram in 1997. The women who had more mammograms had more cases of invasive breast cancer which isn't shocking since if you are looking for it you'll probably find it. However, at the end of this study, instead of the results being the same the cases of invasive breast cancer were still higher by 22% among the regularly screened women. This leads Per-Henrik Zahl and his team to suggest that perhaps some of the tumors detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if not caught and treated. Yet, we know little about what happens to untreated breast cancer since it is unethical to not treat a woman with tumors.
Is is possible that there is a type of tumor that is different from the ones we know? We do know that some melanoma forms of cancer will shrink on their own or regress, and about 32 cases reported in which invasive breast cancer regressed. But with any new discovery there are many skeptics. Will more research discourage women from having their routine screening? Screenings save lives and despite what is discovered, women must continue to have them done. There is nothing unethical about this research and it can prove to be quite beneficial in the future. Doctors are only trying to solve one of the many mysteries that are involved with cancer.

Myspace User Commits Suicide

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/26/internet.suicide/index.html

I thought this article was interesting because almost everyone from this generation knows what MySpace is or has one. I'm sure you have already heard about this case, but a verdict was finally decided on. Megan Meier had a MySpace account like many other 13 year old girls do, however, she was talking to strangers and thought that they actually liked her. Lori Drew, 49, posed as a young teenage boy and made Megan believe that this boy actually liked her. One day Drew just decided to tell Megan the world would be better off without her and completely crushed her. Megan hung herself in her room after being rejected by her love interest. The jury had a hard time convicting Drew on felony charges alleging conspiracy. Drew was convicted of three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on Meier. The U.S. District Judge, George Wu, declared a mistrial on a fourth count of conspiracy after a California jury failed to reach a verdict. It is pretty clear that Drew made this account in an attempt to hurt Meier's feelings, otherwise why would a 49 year old woman pose as a 16 year old boy named Josh Evans. Drew and her attorney plan to go back to court to fight her convictions. Drew was trying to see if Megan was saying derogatory things about her daughter who was friends with Megan.

I think the time that Drew will face is nothing compared to the loss the Meier family will have to deal with for the rest of their life. How immature is Lori Drew that she had to say those mean things to a thirteen year old, especially when girls are experiencing a lot of changes around that age. The original charges were a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison if convicted. This misdemeanor charges carry a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a fine of $100,000. I think she should sit in prison and think for years about the problems the Meier family will be facing for the rest of their life. It may seem harsh, and maybe Megan was depressed prior to her suicide, but Drew definitely put her over the edge. Is it fair and ethical that Drew may get off only have a maximum of a year and a few thousands dollars in fines. I don't think that will make her feel nearly as guilty as she should.

George W. Bush Sewage Plant?!

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/10/local/me-sfsewage10

When I was in Hawaii this summer I read about a proposal that San Francisco residents have put together. Since today is election day it triggered this in my mind and I find it quite humorous. San Fran is a very liberal area with a group called "Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco" and during the end of June or beginning of July they submitted a proposal to name the local sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush. They have already submitted 12,000 signatures. The group's insignia is of the presidential seal with an American eagle holding two toilet plungers. They feel that we as a country will have decades full of cleaning up the mess that the Bush administration has created. One obvious example of this is the War on Terror. Obviously the Republican party finds offense in this ballot but this is how many American people feel his presidency should be remembered. George W. Bush Sewage Plant kind of has a ring to it doesn't it!? After the amount of debt we are in many people are happy that Bush is leaving office after eight terrible years and I think it is truly safe to say that regardless of who wins tonight, America wants change.

Smear Ads

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/campaign.wrap/index.html



This article speaks about the smear ads that we have all seen in this presidential election process. For instance, McCain will bring up that Obama was associating with the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 and that this is true and not a smear. But how do we know who to believe? Both candidates tell us what we need to do to fix our economy and country yet they are bashing each others ideas in debates and on television ads. Isn't it unethical to have these ads say things to the public that might not necessarily be true? Maybe our two-party system is flawed, but could a three party system work? Regardless, it seems that the candidates spend more time criticizing the other than they do talking about their ideas, how they'd put them to work, and how they'd better our society as a whole.

Hucksters in the Classroom

After reading this article I have a new take on company's that try and help public schools by providing learning materials. Their goal isn't to educate our youth but to try and put their product in their minds so they will buy it in the future. The only reason this is accepted is because the public schools are so underfunded they will take anything that's free to them. By doing this children aren't even safe from advertising at school, the one place where education should be the only thing allowed in schools. The only bright spot is that this approach might keep kids attention while they learn things.
But are they learning useful information or just what the companies want them to learn. An example is that Exxon has an energy cube that teaches kids that fossil fuel poses few environmental problems and that alternative energy is too costly and cannot be attained. This shouldn't be what kids are learning today because it sends the wrong message to them. Fossil fuels pollute the environment and alternative energy is becoming more and more real everyday. But children don't get another prospective and therefore are put at a disadvantage.
Another topic is the use of news broadcast in the form of Channel One in the classroom. Not only does this take away from other things that the kids could be doing it instills t.v. watching where it shouldn't be. The commercials during these broadcasts aren't regulated by the school so Primedia, the company who runs Channel One, can sell ad space to whoever pays the most for it. I watched Channel One when I was in middle school and to me it was far to short to really report on current events that are important to everyone. All it did was give students time to talk to friends or finish up homework that they didn't do the night before.
In conclusion the effects of product placement in the classroom won't be known for awhile but in my opinion it's already working because I doubt companies will keep putting money into something that doesn't show a return for them. The only question is where does it end.