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.

To test or not to test children for breast cancer...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/09/22/Kids.test.gene.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

This article is mainly about whether or not it is ethical to test children for breast cancer gene mutations. Like anything else, there are many pros and cons to this. It has shown that talking about testing and inherited cancer risks with teens can help some quit smoking, limit alcohol use, and avoid birth control pills (which raises the risk of breast cancer but lowers the risk of ovarian). A con is the effect it may put on family members and the BRCA gene test can cost up to three thousand dollars. If either parents has the BRCA gene mutation, the child has a fifty-fifty chance of getting it. To lower risks, women can take anti-estrogen drugs or have their breasts or ovaries removed, but these measures are not advised for young women. Should parents tests their young children or should they leave it up to their children for when they are older?

I believe that I would not want to know if I had the risk of getting cancer. If I did decide to get tested for it, I would want to wait till I was in my twenties. Growing up is hard enough, never mind having to worry about any little thing that bothers you in your body. I feel that no child should have to feel like they are "waiting" for cancer to take over their body. Everything happens for a reason, and I would rather live my life to the fullest and enjoy every minute I have of it instead of dreading the possibility of cancer constantly in the back of my mind.

Norway sells $1 billion Rio Stake...

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24328467-14334,00.html

This article is about on of Europe's biggest investors selling its $1 billion stake in Rio Tinto due to unethical conduct. Rio Tinto is the world's largest gold mine. The Grasberg mine is located in Papua, Indonesia and operated by US-based copper and gold producer Freeport McMoRan. Grasberg mine discharged about 230,000 tons of mine residue into local rivers each day! This mine has caused harmful effects on our environment, but why do they continue to do this? This mine is set up to run until 2041 and the discharges will be increasing in the future along side the expansions that will be made. There is a high risk that acid rock drainage from the company's waste rock and residue will cause lasting ground and water contamination. As a result, Norway's Finance Ministry has decided to no longer hold ownership interests in a company who acts unethically. It is unknown if the company will change its future practices. The Rio Tinto knows that dumping residue into the local waterways is damaging the area, but they continue to do so. Why would a company want to harm their own area where they live? Are they gaining so much more of a profit by polluting than they would be if the residue was properly disposed of it? And if that was the case, it still isn't right. We should all be working towards making this Earth clean for future generations, regardless the price.

To Fire or Not to Fire

http://askfsb.blogs.fsb.cnn.com/2008/06/04/to-fire-or-not-to-fire-%e2%80%93-the-ethics-of-the-layoff/

"To Fire or Not To Fire - the Ethics of a Layoff" points out the pros and cons to firing an employee, especially to a small business owner. Sam Margolin has a service technician employeed to him, but his company hasn't been receiving enough service calls and can't continue to pay the tech for sitting around. The owner wanted to know what he should do or how to make use of his tech. A Fortune Small Business contributer wrote back to Sam's concern explaining it can be good to his business, but can also have consequences. First, from the business' view, finding another skilled technician when business picks back up can be difficult. Second, from the employees' view, getting laid off will have a huge affect on him and his family. The author points out that the "utilitarian" consequences may be best for everyone if the employee is let go. He concludes with:
“[The idea] is always to treat other people not merely as means to our own ends but as ends in themselves,” Hoopes says. Instead of merely saying “Sorry, I don’t need you anymore,” employers can help the employee find a new job, assist with retraining for a different profession, or by pay severance when the employee leaves."...
Which is of course a more ethical move.

Angry?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/smallbusiness/smash_shack.smb/index.htm?postversion=2008092510

I can't really decide if there's a "moral issue" with this article.. but I found it interesting, especially with all of the stresses in today's society. A former vet technician, has opened her own shop in San Diego; but not your typical fashion, home, or pet shop. It's "Sarah's Smash Shack." Yes.. the name says it all. You can go into this one of a kind shop and pay to break items such as dinner plates, wine glasses, vases, etc. The customer is padded up and stands behind a barrier while they chuck and slam items into a stainless steel wall. The broken glass is then donated to regional schools' art programs. It's a creative and therapeutic idea.. but why have one more expense to break items that can be done in your own home? Sarah Lavely, the owner, charges $45 for a pack of 15 plates; 6 wine glasses or 2 large jugs for $12. And keep in mind, it cost $200,000 just to start this "business". Not sure if the owner will see a significant profit?

One Nation Under Wal-Mart

This article interested me because I'm from a small town and while I was growing up I saw first hand how a Wal-Mart can change a local economy. First off they opened just outside the city limits to avoid city taxes. Also all income generated by the store goes to a bank Arkansas. Basically Wal-Mart takes away from our local economy without any positives what so ever besides maybe a few low paying jobs that only increase our poverty level. Over the course of time as more and more customers flock to the store, local businesses lose money because they can't compete. Gradually stores close down from this lose.
When the superstore opened it didn't add on to it's old store but built a new store even further outside of town, mainly because my town expanded it's city limits to include the old Wal-Mart. The old building still sits there unoccupied because no other business needs that much space to operate. In my opinion Wal-Mart is a monopoly because they offer everything a consumer wants in one location like gas, food, clothing, and anything else someone might need. So all businesses in town have to compete against only one store.
Wal-Mart is raping America causing job lose, the depletion of local economies, and eliminating competition of other businesses. I'm just wondering when our government is going to step in and break up this monopoly before theres nothing else left.

post of the week?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/Ike_pain.ap/index.htm

So I'm not exactly sure what we're exactly supposed to post on... but I came across an article on the weekends "extreme" gas price spike. President Bush had announced that the country would be in a "pinch" because of rising gas prices due to Hurricane Ike's path in the Gulf Coast, but said that Americans wouldnt be subject to "gouging". However... it seems weird that one gas station went from $3.59 last Thursday night to $3.99 on Friday, and another, at the same beginning price, jumped to $4.69. When the two were within minutes of one another in location. This to me, seems like "gouging." I understand that the 3.99 station would sell out of gas sooner than the 4.69 station, and that might have been their strategic plan. President Bush said that if Americans suspected price gouging, then to report it to federal agencies, but I honestly don't think that would of any significance to do so...

Blood for Sale

Why would someone want to profit off another's misfortune? After reading "Blood for Sale" I found myself asking that exact question. I give blood to the red cross as often as I can but I never imagined anybody would take money for it, even though I can see that if your life depended on it then price wouldn't be an issue. I guess I'm just naive. In my view of things a person should help others not for financial gain but to do a good for your fellow man. I seriously doubt someone would charge another person for saving their life. Of course that is a direct approach as oppose to giving blood where the person's life you save isn't known by you. So does that make it okay? It depends on who you ask because most people have the me first attitude where they feel that if they do something or give something then they should be compensated for whatever they give or do for someone else.
Society as a whole is changing, but is it for the better or worse? In my opinion it's getting worse because as a society we are becoming less dependent on our fellow man due to technology and other factors. So donating blood and helping others takes a back track to your own needs and so companies are then formed. These companies buy blood from anybody who meets a few requirements and in return they are compensated. The only thing is that drug addicts and alcoholics are their main clients and they can't be trusted for accurate information.
I'm all for giving blood as long as it's for the right reason and that is to help another without monetary compensation. If other countries can implement a program that promotes goodwill and the notion that helping others shouldn't be for their own gain then why can't we do the same.

Unethical Behavior and Gas Prices

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/gas_poll/index.htm




Hey ... I'm not really sure if this is what we are supposed to be doing but this is an article similar to one I read a while back. When a sample of Americans were surveyed, sixty-two percent blame "unethical behavior" by industry players in regards to gas prices. Only thirty-two percent felt that the continual increase in price was due to supply and demand. Half the states in the U.S.A. are paying over $4 a gallon on average. When I was in Hawaii this summer, the gas was around $4.55. These prices have taken tolls on consumer budgets but as a result of high prices record profits are being made by oil companies. Some people project gas prices will level off at the end of the summer and others think it will continue to rise. Although many people are finding other ways of transportation to use minimal gas, many people who have the money to spend continue to pay the price at the pump. If the U.S.A. lifted some restrictions on domestic oil and drilling, the gas prices would not be so high. We clearly need more sources of oil in the U.S. as well as globally.

I feel personally the U.S. has done very little to help keep the gas prices from rising. The government knows that people will continue to pay for gas and as a result are allowing the price to continue to rise and taking advantage of the situation at hand. There are several things the government could do to help lower the prices of gas, however, the profit they are seeing is huge. Do you guys think it is unethical or merely a case of supply and demand?

Kristin