Peer Response: Wade Butteris

         In response to Wade Butteris’s blog post on euthanasia, I think that his post makes some valiant arguments for the side against it. Euthanasia can be a relieving way to go. Doctors make sure the way that people go is pain free. This should be allowed if people are experiencing strong amounts of pain every day. People who are too old that they can’t even do anything should also have the choice to use this. I think that it is also a controversy for the people who make the actual decision to end a person’s life. I think that the person who’s life is about to be ended should be the only person to have to make that choice. In the case of people who physically can’t make that decision, they should give a loved one the choice to make this choice. The one exception to this would be that the person who makes the decision needs to be notified about the possibility of making this choice at an earlier time. Euthanasia can help a lot of people out and get them away from extreme pains.

-Max

Ethics and Medicine

         One major area thatI learned about ethics and medicine was in the field of medical marijuana. We had a few people in class this week talk about medical marijuana for their persuasive speeches. This is a conflict because marijuana is considered an illegal drug in many states right now. I've heard many speeches about the possible uses of marijuana in the medical field, but people seem to forget that marijuana can mess some people up if it's used inproperly. Not that I'm against the use of marijuana in the medical field, but I just think that this point of view isn't usually represented very well.

         I found the website procon.com which speaks about the pros and cons of medical marijuana use. This made me think about the possible effects on our nation if marijuana was legalized. It would help out numerous amounts of people who needed for medicinal purposes. If marijuana was legalized the U.S. could make and save tons of money by cutting back on law enforcement for this drug. We could also tax the sale of marijuana. Also as I learned this week in class, the use of marijuana is less addictive than caffine.

         There are some things though that would need to be regulated if the use of marijuana was legalized. The only thing that marijuana could be used for could be for medicinal purposes. I've seen people in high school who have consistently taken marijuana illegally and it messed them up. I think that marijuana could be usful but only in the right circumstances and if it was regulated. Marijuana can help lots of people, but only people who need it.

-Max

Peer Response: Allison Spoden

        I agree with Allison and her blog post about a wake-boarding demonstration video. I think it is extremely informative considering wake-boarding is a hard sport to pick up. I actually wakeboard quite a lot, so i consider myself quite the enthusiast. The person who does this demonstration video does a great job. The way he teaches outside of the water so it is visible is great. Some things that could have been fixed with this video could be that there were barely any scenes or pictures with a person actually demonstrating in water how to demonstrate the maneuver. One last thing that I think was pretty good about this video was  that the demonstrator didn't use any slang terms. This makes it so much easier for people who don't usually do water sports to understand what is going on.

-Max

Technorati Blog Post

         I am going to comment on a blog post about global warming, which is what I am doing for my persuasive paper.

         The name of the blog that I am using is  called Climate Progress. Its motto is,"an insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions. The main blogger seems to be a man named Joe. Joe, or Dr. Joseph Romm was named in 2009 by Time magazine as one of the "Heroes of the Environment" and "the web's most influential climate change blogger. Romm was an assistant secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the Clinton Administration where he directed $1billion in research, development, demonstration, and deployment of clean energy and carbon-mitigating technology. He also has a Ph.D. from MIT. I don't know exactly how long the blog has been in existence for, but it seems like Joe posts at least one or two blogs a day. Joe used hyperlinks quite actively in his blogs. His links led to other blogs that connected pretty well to his own blog posts. 


         This blog relates to proof of global warming. This relates to my paper because I actually talk about global warming proof. This blog post by Joe is quite humorous. He posted this blog on February 17th. His blog seems seems more humorous than my paper but still gets the point across about climate change. 


-Max

Response to Marcus Krein's Blog Post

          I agree with Marcus Krein’s blog post on ethics and medicine. There are many positive and negative uses of marijuana. There are some positive uses of marijuana, like Marcus says. They help with conditions in HIV, AIDS, and Arthritis. It can also help with pain, nausea, and vomiting. Also, It can be administered in other ways besides smoking it. This is important because the smoke can be harmful to our lungs and other parts of our body. There are also cons to using marijuana as for medicinal purposes. One thing is that marijuana has been shown to be an addictive drug. It has also been shown to be a gateway drug, or a drug that can lead to the use of other drugs. Also according to U.S. government officials, marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. Marcus’s blog post is spot on. The debate shows that there is a fifty to fifty split between the pros and cons of using marijuana for medicinal purposes.

-Max

Demonstration Evaluation (How to Build the Best Paper Airplane)

           This demonstration speech on how to make a pretty cool paper airplane is one that pretty well planned out. The video can be found on youtube.com. The good points in this demonstration speech are that you can clearly see every step that is going on. The bird’s eye view of the process is very helpful when trying to make this paper plane. It is almost like how I would be looking at the paper when I would be making the paper plane. The other thing that I personally like is that it’s kind of relaxing not having to listen to someone’s annoying voice when they are making this paper plane. I know this could be a problem for some people because some people need the steps of a process to be spelt out for them. Everyone learns differently though so this it is understandable that this demonstration speech might not be the best for some people.

            Some things that could be fixed in this speech is that the person making this paper airplane never repeats any of the steps for making this paper airplane. Although this is a video, if was making video was made live you can’t just rewind the demonstration speech and go over the steps again.  Another thing that could be fixed is that he could talk during his demonstration. Like I said before, everyone learns differently and some people like learning differently and need steps to be spoken to them to help them out. Also, this process is a little boring and monotonous. The person who made this could have at least put some music into his demonstration speech.

-Max

Demonstration Speech Self Evaluation

            

                My demonstration speech on how to make puppy chow didn’t go too bad. I think that there were definitely things that I could work on, but I also think that there were some good things in my speech too.

                I wasn’t kidding when I said puppy chow takes only five minutes to make! My speech was only three minutes and forty-six seconds. Going into the speech I didn’t know how much material I could have for making puppy chow. When I was practicing my speech I had timed myself to be at least 5 minutes. I think during my speech I cut part of my planned intro out. I think I could have added some filler information into my speech. This filler information could have been like the history of puppy chow. Another thing I think I could have worked on would be my voice. I think I could have spoken a little louder and had my voice less monotonous. I might have been swaying a little bit too much. I also caught myself with my hand in my pocket at the beginning of my speech, but I corrected that right away.

                There were some things that I thought were good about my speech. I looked confident when I was up in front of everyone. I wasn’t shaking or anything like that. I thought I used good hand motions when appropriate. I thought my steps were well explained, maybe I could have repeated them, but otherwise I could have. My talking speed seemed pretty good, not too fast, and not too slow. Another thing that was good was that my props seemed well placed.

If I could have changed one thing about my speech, it would have been to bring in a microwave to actually show how to make puppy chow. That way my speech would have actually taken longer to make. Overall though I thought my speech wasn’t too bad, just a little short.

-Max

Peer Response #1: Paul Yonga

In response to Paul Yonga’s thoughts of organ’s being for sale, I think that he thinks that people are selling their organs just for his or her benefit. The money that is given to people when they donate organs is only an incentive for helping other people survive. I agree with the fact there may be a problem with not knowing the status of the organs, but this could easily be solved by simple checkups by doctors before an operation is done. If the selling of organs were allowed, the process wouldn’t be dangerous because it would have to be required for the removal of an organ to not be life threatening and the operation to be carried out by a profession surgeon. To deny people the basic right to choose what they want to do with their body just isn’t right. Plus, the selling of bodies would help so many more people than it would actually hurt by increasing the supply of needed organs while lowering the waiting lists for organs. Also, when he says that it is no longer voluntary for people who are selling their organs for money is just ridiculous. People aren’t forced to sell their organs when they need money. There are a lot of other things that can be done to make money, like getting a job.

-Max

Organs for Sale?

              On the back of our driver’s license there is the option for us to say if we want to be an organ donor. This is done because if some people get into accidents and their organs can be donated to people who need them.  The practice of organ donation is encouraged in most countries. This practice is encouraged because it is a way to save lives. However, in some countries it is illegal for an individual to sell his or her organs.

                I think that people should have the right to sell their organs. The organs belong to the person whose body they are in, it only makes sense for the person to have the right to choose what happens to their body. There are some things that should have to happen before a person can sell his or her organs. If the organ the person is thinking about selling will end their life immediately, like their heart then this shouldn’t be allowed. Another thing that needs to be considered is that if the organ is infected or faulty, the organ shouldn’t be allowed to be sold because it puts the person who’s receiving the organ at risk for disease or faulty organ function.

                After reading the BBC News editorial by Martin Wilkinson, which can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10786211, my opinion hasn’t changed on this issue. My opinion didn’t change because people should have the right to do what they want with their body. Many people get tattoos, people have the choice to put ink on their skin; this is no different than people having the choice to sell their organs. Overall I’d say that organ donation and the choice for people to sell their organs should be allowed to a certain extent with the correct checks on the actual organs.

-Max

Obstacles in writing/reading The Immortal LIfe of Henrietta Lacks

          After reading the synopsis of TILOHL, I think that this is an important story for the public to hear. It is important for people to hear because things like this could happen everyday. People should be aware of the possibility that the stuff we are made of could be being used without our consent. They should also be aware of the importance of consent and could just enjoy this book. 

          From reading the synopsis, I could tell this book wasn't just about ethics of consent, but also about the ethics of experimentation on African Americans. It also wasn't written just for those worried about scientific ethics, but also for those people who just enjoy a good story. In the synopsis, it speaks of how Henrietta's Daughter was devastated to learn of her mother's situation and it brought up many questions for her. So we don't only get the point of view of the author but we also the point of view of someone directly connected to the situation.

         I think some troubles that the author, Rebecca Skloot, had while writing this book for a broad audience included being able to connect to so many people so that they felt what Henrietta Lacks and her family went through. Maybe another challenge that maybe occurred for Skloot was the challenge of staying unbiased for the story. I have not started reading the book yet so I have no idea if Skloot takes a side or not.

         I don't think there will be many challenges while reading this story. One challenge that could come up would be not understanding some large medical terms. Although this challenge can be solved by opening a dictionary, it will just take up more time. Other than that, there are no other challenges that I can think of. I think this book is going to be interesting. 

-Max