Response to Alex Rigsby’s post – How to make Kool-Aid

After watching Lori’s demonstration speech on how to make Kool-Aid, it really made me thirsty.  I went out and bought some Kool-Aid just because it sounded so good.  This speech could definitely pass for a persuasive speech too!  Like Alex said, her introduction was very catchy.  She states the steps to the perfect Kool-Aid recipe and explains what ingredients and supplies you need.

Alex states the good points of Lori’s speech such as the hand gestures and the upbeat presentation.  I agree with this.  She has a great personality and makes me want to make Kool-Aid.  She paused while she looked at her note cards, and did indeed talk fast at times.  The speech was also just long enough to get her point across, yet short enough to keep us interested. 

The part where she used her hand to stir the Kool-Aid made me laugh.  The first thought that popped into my head was, “Good thing she washed her hands before she did that.”  J Like Alex said, she definitely surprised the audience with her actions.  I think this is a good quality of her speech because it kept people interested.  Even though the majority of people know how to make Kool-Aid, she did her own thing to spice it up a little bit. 

One of the things I didn’t like that isn’t really important was the way she dressed.  She looked like she just got done working at ShopKo with the tan pants and navy shirt.  I guess at least she didn’t wear jeans.  She was also a little quiet at times.  Overall, I agree with Alex in the fact that she demonstrated how to make Kool-Aid very well. 

Alex Rigsbys Blog: http://anrigsbylsc100f10.blogspot.com/

Technorati search

The first blog I found is titled, “Metabolism models may explain why Alzheimer's disease kills some neuron types first.”  This is related to my informative paper about iron levels and I thought it was very interesting.  It explains why people with Alzheimer’s disease suffer from different memory losses at different stages during this disease.  The author of this blog post is Daniel Kane and it was posted on December 6^th, 2010.  I can’t assume he posts regularly considering he posted this yesterday because I don’t see when he posted before that.  He uses pictures that have subtitles explaining more about the picture.  The links under each picture bring you to the picture along with a couple sentences of information.  Personally, the pictures aren’t very intriguing and don’t make me want to read the post, although he does utilize the media. 

The other post I found is about euthanasia, the topic of my persuasive paper.   John David is sentenced to be executed by the state of Oklahoma on December 16^th.  The drug normally used to euthanize has run out, and so they have decided to test this new drug on him called pentobarbital, which has never been tested on humans before.  I am against the death penalty so I think this is wrong, but I found it interesting how my topic of euthanasia could be related to another debatable issue.  This blog post was written by Jeff Neumann and was posted today, December 7^th, 2010.  He must be very dedicated to his blog because he has had 62 posts in the last 24 hours.  What a life he has!  This blog is more laid back and has the tone of the person writing it. He uses profanity and portrays his personality.  It is not informative and not persuasive; just states the issue and his views.

Blog 1:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/uoc--mmm120610.php

Blog 2:

http://gawker.com/5694160/oklahoma-wants-to-use-animal-euthanasia-drug-on-death-row-inmate

Response to Rebecca Baily’s Post – Ethics & Medicine: Euthanasia

Dr. Jack Kevorkian

I am very glad I stumbled across Rebecca’s post.  Euthanasia is the topic of my persuasive paper.  The movie called, “You don’t know Jack,” sounds like something I would be very interested in watching.  I want to do more research on Dr. Jack Kevorkian because I was just recently informed about him and I think it would make a good point in my persuasive paper.  Like Rebecca said, he was convicted of homicide after performing euthanasia.  He thought that euthanasia should be practice because it relieves the suffering of a patient. I agree with him 100%.

Rebecca states that she is more against euthanasia because she believes death is a natural thing and should not be forced.  However, keeping someone on a breathing machine to breath for them is not natural.  The technology we have these days is prohibiting many patients from dying naturally.  This creates more suffering and is one reason why I think euthanasia should be an option for a patient who is terminally ill.  Terminally ill patients are completely dependent on another person.  Their life consists of bed baths, feeding tubes, bed sores, and urine bags.  None of this sounds natural to me. 

I have to agree with the fact that I think euthanasia should be legalized, only under certain circumstances though.  For example, if someone was terminally ill and is being kept alive by a machine, one might consider euthanasia.  On the other hand, euthanasia should not be offered to a patient that is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or was severely injured in a car accident.  I agree with Rebecca that I would feel differently depending on different situations.

The articles Rebecca links to are interesting.  Of course I’ve seen them before while researching for my persuasive paper, but they explain the different sides of the issue and give definitions.  I will use the article on Dr. Jack Kevorkian to continue my research. 

Article about Jack Kevorkian: http://www.newint.org/easier-english/right_to_die/againstmd.html

Article about Euthanasia: http://mindprod.com/humanrights/euthanasia.html

How to Perform CPR - Demo Evaluation

I was debating about evaluating a video of an ACL surgery, but then decided it would be too drastic for some people to watch.  So, I chose a video that demonstrates how to perform CPR.  Learning CPR is one of the first things a medical student must learn for their future career.    I will have to learn it eventually, so I figured I would gain a little head start. 

This speech doesn’t have a clear introduction and conclusion.  He starts by talking about warning signs and when to assess the patient. He gives background information which was helpful.  Throughout the speech, he explained the steps clearly and precisely.  He used terms the audience can understand so that someone who isn’t a doctor can perform CPR.  His visual aid was obviously the dummy.  He also had an assistant who really didn’t do much except stand there.

His voice was monotone, which made it a tad boring at times. He wasn’t very enthusiastic considering he is a professional. If that is his job, he should love doing it!  The steps were only explained once, giving the speech little repetition.   It was hard to remember everything he said because he didn’t repeat anything.  Also while he was performing CPR, it was silent.  It would have been better if he was talking or explaining something while doing the motions.  Apparently he can’t multitask!      

Because he works in the medical field, he knew the steps and could explain them very well.  Overall, it was very informative and organized.  It was short and to the point, although it could have been more exciting. 

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2LrQGD2y2I

Embed Code:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t2LrQGD2y2I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t2LrQGD2y2I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Demonstration Speech Evaluation

Overall, I think my demonstration speech went pretty well. It took me a while to come up with a somewhat decent topic but after I found my topic, it was easy to perform in front of the class. It was a spur-of-the-moment topic and was something I enjoyed learning how to do.  Hopefully it really does help me save money.

There were some good and not-so-good parts of my speech.  I got caught up on my words at times and some of my explanations were confusing.  For the most part, it went pretty smooth. My voice, personally, sounds weird, but that goes for a lot of people.  It was a good volume and most of my words were clear. The speech could have been shorter because it barely fell between the 5-6 minute limit.  Visual aids were provided for everybody in the class so they could follow along with what I was showing them; doing that kept more people interested and listening.

I am happy with my performance.  I wasn’t nervous at all and thought I handled myself pretty well.  I am used to giving speeches because when I was the captain of my gymnastics team, I helped fundraise by talking to large groups of people. I am eager to start my persuasive paper. 

Response to Jacob Ninneman's post - My technborati search...

In response to Jacobs post http://jninnemanlsc100f10.blogspot.com/

The blog, “Optimal health resource blog,” is very long and consists of many articles written by John Phillips.  It is mainly about nutrition and could be very helpful in maintaining a healthy diet.  The topics range from magnesium deficiency, to understanding the genetic link to weight loss, to the top strategies to preventing diabetes; one article even talks about how important it is to get a good night’s sleep.  In our athletic course, counseling psychology 115: life skills academy, we were taught that sugar is very unhealthy and mainly just produces fat in your body.  This article explains why sugar is bad and what exactly sugar does to your body. 

I thought the post on fish nutrition was very interesting.  I never knew that fish could help protect us from developing chronic diseases.  The post also talks about insulin and diabetes.  Several experiments were performed to help explore two omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil.  I think Jacob’s informative paper about athletic nutrition would be interesting to read. 

Being completely unrelated to sports nutrition, I was very bothered by the fact that the fish study experiments used animal testing.  I am against animal testing and think that it is morally wrong.  Even though the DHA protected the animals, they should not be tested on.  They were not put on this earth for that reason.   

The articles discussed are as follows:

http://optimalhealthresource.wordpress.com/ 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/usdo-gfn100810.php 

Ethics and Medicine

Birth control pills… Are they a good idea? Or should pharmacists have the right to deny any woman birth control? Many people are against the birth control pill because they think it is going against Mother Nature and that it is equivalent to receiving an abortion.  Others think it is widely needed to prevent many teenagers and young couples from getting pregnant.   The upcoming election between Tom Barrett and Scott Walker could affect whether birth control pills are allowed.  I was doing research on these candidates for our future governor of Wisconsin, and the birth control pill was one of the discussion topics.  Walker supports a bill that makes it okay for any pharmacist to deny a woman access to birth control.  Do we want this? I think it is very important to keep the pill as an option of contraceptive.  It is one of the most effective birth controls and is used by over 80% of woman (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center).  If the birth control pill was outlawed, more people would become pregnant, which could possibly result in more abortions.  Abortions are a completely different topic with a lot more controversy, but personally, I think birth control pills need to stay. 

http://www.trosch.org/rwd/brthcntl.htm

The above link is against the birth control pill.  It states that many people are not informed on how birth control works.  It argues that the birth control pill is a form of abortion.  The link below is a blog written by Jenifer Scharpen who is for the birth control pill.  The question she ponders is, “how can birth control lead to more abortions?” 

http://www.parentdish.com/2006/10/01/the-push-to-outlaw-birth-control/

The first link presents the most compelling argument.  It gives us factual information on how it works and nobody can argue with that, however, it doesn’t persuade me to be against the birth control pill. 

Response to Nicole Vike's post - The Marketing of Organs

In response to Nicole Vike’s post…. (http://nvikelsc100f10.blogspot.com/)

I, 100 percent, agree with Nicole’s views.  It makes no sense, what-so-ever, to have to sell an organ for profit.  Like Nicole said, people would just sell their extra kidney, instead of putting hours in at their job.  This is not something we need happening to our economy.  I never thought of it that way.  I also agree with the fact that the world would be mad… Everybody would be going out and selling their organs.  I know there are a lot of people out there that are in desperate need of an organ, and there aren’t as many donors as there are transplant receivers, but selling organs is not the answer. 

Also, with the fact that the whole procedure is very expensive, why would we throw in another expense for the receiver? Nicole said, “People who need organs the most might get outweighed by people who have the most money.” This is so true because with how expensive this whole process is, it would limit the amount of people able to receive a transplant; only the rich would be able to afford this.  I agree that this would be completely unethical. 

Lastly, I also disagree with the quote by the author saying we can do what we want with our bodies because we are in charge of them.    Yes, they’re our bodies, but why make a profit off of them? Wouldn’t it be nice if people could have the heart to just donate organs? There are definitely more disadvantages than there are advantages. It would hurt more than it would help, only because people would be putting themselves in danger for something that may not work or could be rejected. 

Nicole’s post is very convincing and persuading. After reading it, if anything, I am more against the idea of selling organs than I was before.

Selling Organs?

Should an individual have the right to sell his or her organs?  I do not think people should be allowed to sell their organs.  Could you imagine walking into a store, where aisles consist of lungs, hearts and livers? Let’s go to the kidney aisle because I need a new one… This does not sound right to me, AT all.  Selling parts of your body, dead or alive, is wrong and is ill-mannered. It is selfish, period.  Once a person has passed away, who would take the money for those organs anyway?  I also believe that transplants aren’t a cure; they just postpone one’s life.  Transplant patients have to take injections for the rest of their lives, so in a way they are just trading a terminal disease for a chronic one (2010, Arthur L. Caplan).  Selling organs, to me, makes it seem like you are taking advantage of yourself.  There are certain circumstances, however, where I think organs should be donated.  If someone was willing to donate their organ while still alive, I believe that should be allowed, because it’s their body.   After someone dies, it also only makes sense to recycle the parts to save other people, with their consent of course. Our technology these days has improved so much, and being able to perform a procedure like a heart transplant is a miracle. Why should we let those skills and knowledge go to waste? Overall, people should not be able to sell their organs; they should simply donate them.

I agree with Martin Wilkinson in the fact that there are a lot of people in need of organs, but I think there are enough donors out there who would be willing to give up their organs after they die.  This article did change my mind a little.  I’m not for it, or against it.  If the law does change, and selling an organ is no longer a criminal offense, it would just give the wrong impression.

The article can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10786211

Response to Henrietta Lacks

I, personally, wouldn’t mind if my blood or anything was used for research. It would be an honor for me to find out that I had cured cancer or something! J The only thing that would make me mad would be if I had a rare disease and they manipulated the sample or turned it into something else.  It can be tested and observed, just not changed.  Another thing I would fear would be if they used it to make a replica of me.  How am I supposed to know what they’re going to do with it? I would want to be informed on what I’m helping with, and if they never asked for permission, I would be a little scared of what might happen.   I think it would be a great thing for me to help contribute to cures and life-saving medications.  I wouldn’t really understand why they wouldn’t ask for consent, but I definitely wouldn’t mind. 

After reading the article, my views have slightly changed. I think it was wrong for them to say that they feared patients saying no.  If the patient says no, it means no.  That doesn’t mean you should just skip asking them.  I also think that it was wrong for them to sell her cells.  The least they could have done is offer her some compensation.  It would be different if she allowed them to do research, then it was voluntary and she shouldn’t receive anything.  But because she was never asked, they should have to make it up to her. 

Bottom line, researchers should ask for approval before using samples from patients. If I were to find out that my cells were being used for finding a cure for diabetes, I would not be mad.  As long as I know what it’s for, I would feel privileged.