The Dangers Of Smoking And Smoking - 2027 Words

Over 65% of adult cigarette smokers claim that they wish they could quit permanently, according to a survey by the American Center for Disease Control (Smoking Cessation). This desire to cede from the addiction of smoking is in good reasoning, too. Even those who currently smoke know the dangers in such an unhealthy behavior, and everyone is familiar with the aura of disaster that comes along with cigarettes, but what exactly makes them so dangerous? Is it addiction; financial loss; psychological isolation? Try chemicals. Over four thousand chemicals have been identified in cigarette smoke, and, the worst part is, a great number of the same chemicals are found in America’s food, too (Wells). Just as cigarette tobacco absorbs harmful pesticides from the soil in which it grows, America’s grains, fruits, and vegetables do the same. Although not nearly all four thousand are commonplace in our everyday diet, these chemicals have recently drawn the concern of many consum ers. Research studies conducted by distinguished scientists have found a vast amount of chemical residue in conventional foods. Eliminating these toxins from diets is quite easy: grow the food without pesticides. Organic and natural foods are superior to conventional foods in that they help preserve the environment and offer greater health benefits. What is the difference between ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ foods, and â€Å"Does it matter?† asks Elizabeth Weise alongside many customers. According to theShow MoreRelatedThe Dangers Of Smoking And Smoking2682 Words   |  11 Pages When I think of smoking the first thing that comes to my mind is lung cancer. I could say with confidence that mostly any person that is asked about tobacco know the harm it causes to the human body or at least one of the dangers of smoking. This topic is very interesting to me because i simply don t understand why a person becomes a frequent smoker while knowing all the harm one cigarette can do to them and others around them. Second hand smoking is also a big issue in our country because of allRead MoreThe Dangers Of Smoking And Smoking861 Words   |  4 PagesConversely, some individuals make choices that turn into habits, which are unhealthy. In the eyes of society, smoking is one of the worst habits a person can have. Through the analysis of smokers’ routines, it may be possible to find ways to help them curb their unhealthy practices. Cigarette smokers who seek advice from professionals to help them quit smoking are often told to throw away all smoking paraphernalia, which could include, lighters, ashtrays, and cigarette cases. These items can trigger theRead MoreThe Dangers of Smoking.1495 Words   |  6 Pagesof your addictions? Even though we know more about the dangers of smoking, it sill haunts society. Not only does smoking have many dangers, physical outcomes, and costs, but also there are also many positive steps to combat this tribal habit. Some dangers of smoking are minor outcomes such as: problems breathing, wrinkles, and bad smelling clothes, hair, skin changes to yellowish color from the toxins in cigarettes. Major outcomes from smoking are risks of catching cancer such as lung cancer, cancerRead MoreThe Dangers Of Smoking Tobacco Smoking1547 Words   |  7 PagesDISCUSSION Since you cannot tackle what you are unaware of, the first step in decreasing tobacco smoking is to identify who the smokers are. These could be potential or current users of tobacco and tobacco products or people who are affected by environmental smoke also known as secondhand smoke. Health care providers cannot stop or reduce usage in a patient if they do not know whether the patient is a beginner or a current user. In the health care system, the family physicians are usually the primaryRead MoreThe Dangers of Smoking1037 Words   |  4 Pages1970 as part of The Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule II drug because it was less addictive, less dangerous, and could be used for medical benefit. There are many dangerous chemicals in tobacco products. According to Margaret Hyde in her book Smoking 101, â€Å"Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, some 60 of which are known or suspected to be carcinogen† (24). She goes on to say, â€Å"Chemicals called nitrosamines are particularly bad carcinogens. The government regulates the amount of nitrosaminesRead MoreThe Dangers Of Smoking Cigarette Smoking Essay1627 Words   |  7 Pagesnotorious. Several decades later in 1964, the hazards of smoking cigarette became known to the public (Boston university medical center, 1999). Even though smoking cigarette risks have been published for roughly 50 years, people still smoke for several reasons and they should be reminded of its fatal effects in order to quit. The Problem definition The basic definition of habit is an enjoyable activity being done regularly or occasionally. Thus, smoking cigarette can be classified as a habit. This habitRead MoreThe Dangers Of Smoking Tobacco Smoking Essay2296 Words   |  10 PagesYouth tobacco smoking has been associated with so many factors. To start with social and physical environments have been associated with this because of the way the mass media shows tobacco smoking as a normal thing and this has promoted tobacco use among the youths. Parental smoking has also contributed because their parents are role models and they always follow their steps. Secondly there are some genetic and biological factors that contribute to this. This occurs where it is more difficult forRead MoreThe Dangers Of Smoking Cigarettes786 Words   |  4 PagesDangers of Smoking Cigarettes are everywhere. They’re sold in almost every gas station, pharmaceutical store, and even ordinary grocery stores in the United States. Cigarettes have endorsements from celebrities, big tobacco companies, advertised on billboards, and through commercials. Smoking is a problem because it causes diseases which cost billions of dollars a year in healthcare. It is also the leading cause of diseases and deaths in the US. Smoking cigarettes is an unhealthy habit that unfortunelyRead MoreThe Dangers of Smoking Are Overemphasized670 Words   |  3 Pagesof lives every year. I think the dangers of smoking are overemphasized but our society chooses not to take it serious by ignoring all the information that is given to them and instead choose to harm their own body by smoking tobacco. Smoking is a self- destructive behavior that effects the smoker mentally, physically, emotional and economically. Anti-smoking campaigns and Ads spend billions of dollars every year trying to discourage adults and teens from smoking and improve public health. Every humanRead MoreThe Dangers Of Passive Smoking1293 Words   |  6 PagesPassive smoking, is known as â€Å"second hand smoke† or â€Å"environmental tobacco smoke(ETS)†. Passive smoking occurred when the non-smoker people breathe in the chemical that released from surrounding smoker’s cigarette, or being exposed in smoke environment. It also comprises â€Å"sidestream† smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and â€Å"mainstream† smoke which is smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. It is a real threat to public health, however, people ignore or look down upon this

History of American Education, and No Child Left Behind Essay

1620-1776 Precess, Boundaries Colonial America of 1620-1776 began the system for free public education for all New England colonies except Rhode Island. Has this system for free schools been maintained in part by â€Å"public funding?’ The Puritans believed the local governments should see to it that all children learned to read the Bible. Without being able to read the Bible, the children would not know how to denounce Satan. The Eight General Assembly, provided, for the people of each county, by a two-thirds vote to tax themselves three and one-third cents per dollar for school purposes. With colonists grouped in towns and large settlements, it was easier to organize the schools. Early Massachusetts laws of 1642 and 1647 that every†¦show more content†¦With supporting facts of the statics of dropouts and arrest for juveniles on the up, leaves no empathy for the equalities of social identities. To be honest and willing takes risks and has consequences that has been proven and can be predicted! To have literacy is to empower one’s self. The complex system of institutional oppression and social injustice is self-inflicted. As in the use of Graffiti, it shows literacy and critical thinking, but shows a collective responsibility for precession. Graffiti is a perfect example of decision-making and the use of political statements. â€Å"The unhappiness and discontent of young people is nothing new†¦ (Bird 199) The pyramid shows how specialties should work, from the bottom up, and one stone at a time. Specialty is to comparison, did you walk before you crawled? The natural process to learn from someone whom is more experienced in the specialized area would be more beneficial. Equalities can best be resolved by using acceptance and respect in most skills learned. Most inquisitive minds can explore and challenge preconceived notions. Education teaches critical thinking, decision-making, and enhances the feeling of security. Our country and our world have had a change, which and who is, must be educated. The advantages of the disadvantaged have taken centerfold of our educational structure. Our country and our world have had a change, which and who is, must beShow MoreRelatedThe Evolution Of The Education1566 Words   |  7 Pagesof Education in America Education plays the most crucial role in the quality of life any person will ever live. Before a set structure, or a standard of education was made, education was not considered a necessity. Once the importance of education was established and more people began attending school, the race to a higher education became more intense than ever. People even began saving up to send their children away from home for their best chance at succeeding in life with a good education (PublicRead MoreHistory And Politics Of Education1301 Words   |  6 PagesThe History and Politics in the Demographics of Education Education is a fundamental aspect of society in the United States of America. In order to comprehend how the current education system is at its present state, one must observe the major factors that have affected the education system. Demographics are leaving an everlasting imprint on U.S. education, spanning back to the late nineteenth century at Harvard University (Du Bois 364). According to Norman Eng (Adjunct Assistant Professor atRead MoreThe Achievement Struggle of U.S. Schools 748 Words   |  3 Pagesthe past decade American schools have been struggling to achieve the success rate of other countries. In the past 15 years the United States has stayed stagnant while other countries pass the U.S. in math, reading, and science. (SOURCE) Stagnant test scores and poor performance globally have educators, politicians and businessperson concerned about the future of education. Diane Ravitch is a highly educated author and a graduate of Wellesley College and received her Ph.D in history from ColumbiaRead MoreThe Importance of Improving Public Education Essay examples1453 Words   |  6 Pagesspecifically the â€Å"No Child Left Behind Act.† The No Child Left Behind Act was not the first law passed to affect the nation’s educational systems, nor will it be the last. There have been several problems laid out with the various educational systems put into place, and there are many things we could do today to better our educational systems in the future. Before President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act went into place there was the â€Å"Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.† HoweverRead MoreEducation Revolution: Why the No Child Left Behind Act Didnt Work1695 Words   |  7 PagesEducation is the foundation of American society. It empowers the youth of America to become the successful leaders this country needs for the future. Education has been one of America’s top priorities since 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed. Now, education is controlled by the No Child Left Behind Act, which was launched in January 8, 2002. This act was passed with intentions from the government to provide Americans with a more superior education system. HoweverRead MoreHow Education Is The Key Focus On Improving Test Scores1635 Words   |  7 PagesFor many years the government has played a role in how education was run. For decades, politics has placed its focus on student test scores, how to increase those test scores, and standards that must be followed in order to achieve the goals the politicians have set. Early childhood education has been the key focus on improving test scores. According to the politics, test scores must meet above average levels in order for students to become college and career ready. Greater emphasize is pushedRead MoreNo Child Left Behind Is An Act Designed985 Words   |  4 PagesAs previously stated, No Child Left Behind is an act designed to help students achieve and learn more in the elementary through high school grade levels. The act was put into place on January 8th, 2002 by President Bush as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind). The act was implemented into every public school in America, and has promoted the emphasis on math, reading and writing (White). The act required annual testing in schools of all students fromRead MoreEducation Is A Central Need Of All People Around Ov er The World1543 Words   |  7 PagesEducation considers as a central need of all people around over the world. All children have the whole right to learn. According to Aske, Connolly, Corman, (2012), â€Å"all children in the United States have the right to a publicly supported education regardless of race, social class or religious beliefs is an American value.† The important point that we should take care of in the rights of education do not look at students’ social levels, race, and religions. Therefore, early reformers attempted andRead MoreEducation Is A Central Need Of All People Around Over The World1543 Words   |  7 PagesEducation considers as a central need of all people around over the world. All children have the whole right to learn. According to Aske, Connolly, Corman, (2013), â€Å"all children in the United States have the right to a publicly supported education regardless of race, social class or religious beliefs is an American value.† The important point that we should take care of in the rights of education do not look at students’ social levels, race, and religions. Therefore, early reformers attempted andRead MoreThe Federal Government’s Role in Education Essay848 Words   |  4 Pagesdoes not mention education, our founding fathers did value education. Illustrated by the ordinances they passed â€Å"in 1785 and 1787 that granted federal lands to states to create and support public school- an institution that the nation’s founders viewed as essential to democracy and national unification.† (Jennings, p3) In 1959, the admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union reconfirmed the Federal government’s support of education. Three distinct elements that impact education are; laws that have

The Case against ‘The Case against Perfection’ Free Essays

string(51) " debilitating muscle loss that comes with old age\." Michael Sandels essay The Case against Perfection (The Atlantic Monthly, April, 2004) is basically a stand that opposes the idea of genetic enhancement primarily via cloning. Sandels places forward his idea of what is wrong with genetic engineering. He admitted its benefits, but he also tried to show how bad it could be allow cloning and genetic engineering. We will write a custom essay sample on The Case against ‘The Case against Perfection’ or any similar topic only for you Order Now Sandels starts with a thesis that states his stand over the subject matter. His choice of words even in the first sentence alone shows his opposition to the idea of using genetic engineering to enhance the next generation   offspring of a couple.. Throughout the text, the readers find Sandels pondering on perspetive of the advocates of genetic engineering, talking about the possibilities of the technology and then giving the possible good effects that the development of the technology might bring. He then talks about the how the different popular issues against genetic engineering may be invalid. He defends the stand of genetic engineers, but not to really defend it, but only to show why some reasons some parties are against it are not valid at all. Then, he would present the case which he believes is the more valid reason why genetic engineering should not be used to enhance the future generations. Sandels attacks the issue by presenting its different facets using analogies and logical reasoning. Even a s he ended the essay, he quoted what he must have believed to be the stronges and the most tempting reasons why genetic engineering should be given a chance to be used to enhance future generations – perfect muscles, right height,   intelligence, and freedom from diseases.   Yet, like in the other paragraphs, Sandels only refuted the idea of genetic engineering, however, his he failed to lay in details his counter against the satnd of the last author he quoted. In his attempt to show all the sides of the issue to avoid being biased, Sandels showed clearly how the idea of the advocates of genetic engineering works. But most of the time, he is unable to discuss clearly why the idea of the advocates he mention the different parts of the essay are wrong. In some cases, he had problems with reasoning. Let us start with the first issue he raised in the first paragraph. The last part of the paragraph sounds strong, but there are flaws in his reasoning: â€Å"In liberal societies they reach first for the language of autonomy, fairness, and individual rights. But this part of our moral vocabulary is ill equipped to address the hardest questions posed by genetic engineering.† This reasoning is like an ad hominem, only, it does not attack the speaker but the words which encompass the basis of the liberal societies in advocating genetic engineering. In ad hominem, the argument attacks the speaker rather than the reason, but here the words â€Å"autonomy†, â€Å"fairness†, and â€Å"individual rights† appear to be the sources f the argument and are the ones being attacked instead of the arguments that are according to Sandels, founded on these words. Instead of focusing on the reasons, he preempted the arguments of the believers of genetic engineering by claiming there is something wrong with how we define the â€Å"autonomy†, â€Å"fairness† and â€Å"equal rights†. It can further be noted that Sandels himself refuted the oppositions to genetic engineering that are based on autonomy. He did not define clearly what he meant by autonomy in his essay. Moreover, instead of strengthening the position of the opposing parties that base their arguments on autonomy. What he strengthened rather was the stand of genetic engineers when he made analogies between cloning and using botox and steroids. When he countered the argument about autonomy, the first reason he gave why the argument was not convincing is: â€Å"†¦it wrongly implies that absent a designing parent, children are free to choose their characteristics for themselves. But none of us chooses his genetic inheritance. The alternative to a cloned or genetically enhanced child is not one whose future is unbound by particular talents but one at the mercy of the genetic lottery.† (par. 5) His point seems rather ambiguous, for what is the sense of the second sentence of the excerpt? How can an enhanced child be at the mercy of the genetic lottery when the parents have already determined the child’s genes? Moreover, he mentioned that the argument has a wrong implication – that children whose parents did not choose their genes for them are free to choose their characteristics for themselves. The argument states that parents disallow the rights of the child to an open future by choosing a genetic structure of the kid in advance. His does not imply that children can choose their genes. It only wants to say that if their genes are not pre-selected by their parents, they can choose their career paths based on what pleases them and not based on the genes that their parents designed for them, and he even explained it this way. In paragraph 8, he drags the issue to theology, that claiming that it is a matter of moral. He makes it appear that the only way to resolve this issue is by consulting theological thoughts about the issue. He is pushing the idea that this issue can only be resolved if we look into the moral status of nature and proper stance of the human beings toward the given world. He may be right that this is a moral issue, but the grounds on which he based his arguments seem not well founded. This part of his paper appears more like a moralistic fallacy. He seems to be setting up the readers for something that would discuss how things should be and let that be the basis of the argument against genetic engineering or be the argument itself. In paragraph 9, he made a generalization, â€Å"Everyone would welcome a gene therapy to alleviate muscular dystrophy and to reverse the debilitating muscle loss that comes with old age. You read "The Case against ‘The Case against Perfection’" in category "Essay examples"† This is perhaps a swift overview or an overgeneralization. How could he be sure that everyone would be open to the idea? He did not even present any survey to support his claim at least inductively. This is a sweeping statement that can be toppled any who would say that he does not welcome a gene therapy to alleviate muscular dystrophy or to reverse the debilitating muscle loss. In the same paragraph, he made weak analogy. The author claimed â€Å"The widespread use of steroids and other performance-improving drugs in professional sports suggests that many athletes will be eager to avail themselves of genetic enhancement.† Logically speaking, it does not follow that though A and B have similarities, what applies to A will apply to B. Though his claim may be true, he fails to make the necessary connections to establish a strong analogy between genetic engineering and performance enhancers. Again, as he had done in the earlier paragraphs, in paragraph 11, Sandels presents an argument against genetic engineering and refutes it: â€Å"It might be argued that a genetically enhanced athlete, like a drug-enhanced athlete, would have an unfair advantage over his unenhanced competitors. But the fairness argument against enhancement has a fatal flaw: it has always been the case that some athletes are better endowed genetically than others, and yet we do not consider this to undermine the fairness of competitive sports.† Here, mentions that the fatal flaw in the argument is that there have always been athletes who are disadvantaged because some athletes are better endowed. That some athletes are better endowed than others is true, but that this fact is a fatal flaw is the flawed idea. This is a case of fallacy of relevance. Being genetically or drug enhanced is very different from being genetically endowed by nature. A person endowed by nature with genes that make him competitive may have an advantage over those who are not endowed, but both have the equal chance to enhance their abilities through practice. However, it must be considered that an athlete is more likely genetically endowed than not. Hence, the biggest factor is not the natural abilities of the athlete, but perhaps the preparedness of the athlete for a contest. If an athlete is drug enhanced or genetically enhanced, he may not need to practice or train as hard to achieve the results he wants. Therefore, Sandels conclusion that â€Å"if genetic development in sports is ethically offensive, it should be for motives other than fairness† is invalid. In paragraph 14, Sandels proposes two reasons why we should worry about bioengineering – â€Å"Is the scenario troubling because the unenhanced poor would be denied the benefits of bioengineering, or because the enhanced affluent would somehow be dehumanized?† Above this is his belief that â€Å"worry about access ignores the moral status of enhancement itself.† In his argument, Sandels commits a fallacy of presumption, specifically, a fallacy of dilemmas. He limits the situation to two negative scenario – the poor cannot afford the cost of genetic enhancement and the rich who can afford become dehumanized. The question is, â€Å"what evidences point to the situations he is saying?† What he is saying may be plausible, but he is not able to develop it logically to make the premises strong and firm. Limiting his choices to only two scenarios makes it appear that there is nothing more to bioengineering than deprivation of the poor of it and the dehumanization of the rich. This reasoning also makes it appear that only the rich may be able to access genetic enhancement. Furthermore, he limited the tern dehumanization to the rich. This poses a sort of bias to those who can afford it, when earlier in the paper he was talking about athletes who might access genetic enhancement the way they do performance enhancement drugs. Towards the end of paragraph 14, Sandels had a firm claim that â€Å"the fundamental question is not how to ensure equal access to enhancement but whether we should aspire to it in the first place.† This is a misleading notion of presumption. He makes this assumption and lets the evidences suit it rather than conclude based on empirical data and logical analysis. It seems that only because â€Å"the fundamental question is not how to ensure equal access,† then the major concern is whether we should desire for it (bioengineering) in the first place. What he is saying may be true, but the way he develops it makes his reasoning invalid. It weakens his propositions. He repeats the same fallacy in paragraph 18 when he claimed that the real question about growth hormones is not its availability but whether we want to live in a society where the parents spend for genetic enhancement. In his discussion about the possible solutions to problems of unequal access to bioengineering, he made it sound all too simple for the government to subsidize the demands even of the poor. He did not realize that had the governments of different countries the money or funds, they would rather use that money to make sure nobody gets hungry, and not on expensive genetic enhancement that does not have any promise to save people from hunger based on any study. He created a scenario that seemed too easy to happen just to let his idea stand out. His proposition is perhaps a more important question, but the way he brings it out hurts the validity of his arguments. Another issue on his discussion of genetic enhancement is the ability of the parents to choose the sex of their child. In the previous paragraphs he would always state the case of something that is already prevalent and then compare it with genetic engineering. Here, he only mentioned that where folk remedies failed, genetic enhancement or bioengineering can be of help. Through bioengineering, a couple can choose the sex of the offspring. He pointed out in his discussion about this matter that choosing the sex of the offspring somehow removes the giftedness when the child comes. The child not longer comes as a gift, but more like a planned object. He did not criticize how folk remedies also tend create the same effect whether they are effective or not. It is clear ere how he leans toward a bias in attacking genetic engineering. Sandels also had reasons that are too far flung from reality. Consider his argument in paragraph 30. While it is true that effort is not everything, it would not have been possible that a basketball paler who trains harder than Michael Jordan would be a mediocre player. It would take a lot to be more than like Jordan and to earn more than he did, but one who trains harder he (Jordan) did would not remain mediocre. He is using an impossible scenario to create his point. And that does not make much sense at all. In paragraph 40, Sandels said that â€Å"Genetic manipulation seems somehow worse — more intrusive, more sinister — than other ways of enhancing performance and seeking success.† There is a grave error here suggesting that all efforts of parents in seeking to enhance the performance of their children so they may become successful are bad, intrusive, or sinister. What of parents who personally train their children? What of parents who lets their children attend to trainings that they want to attend, because they (the children) want to be successful in that endeavor? Would that be sinister? Maybe that is not what he means, but that is the message his paper seems to be putting across. It could have been better if he specified which ways of enhancing the child’s performance are sinister. In paragraph 53, Sandels wants to pint out that genetic engineering does not only violate religious morals, but also secular morals: â€Å"The moral stakes can also be described in secular terms. If bioengineering made the myth of the â€Å"self-made man† come true, it would be difficult to view our talents as gifts for which we are indebted, rather than as achievements for which we are responsible. This would transform three key features of our moral landscape: humility, responsibility, and solidarity.† He denies religion in this part, but he talks about gifts for which we are indebted. The question now, is, â€Å"to whom are we indebted?† Taking our talents as gifts inevitably leads us to a proposition that involves religion, for where will the gift come from? If the gifts were merely from nature, to whom do we owe humility, responsibility, and solidarity? He further argues that genetic engineering takes away these three. He forgets to consider that the characteristics of a person are but secondary. What a person, whether genetically endowed or not, savors most is life itself. With or without genetic enhancement, a person has reasonability to his fellowmen. In the same way, whether genetically enhanced or not, a person may be boastful or humble depending on how the parents reared him. Solidarity has nothing to do with genetic enhancement or endowment. People unite for a common cause, for love and for peace. His argument is presuming that genetically enhanced individuals are incapable of humility, responsibility, and solidarity, but he did not develop the issue logically. If his statements in paragraph 53 were factual, why did he have to mention, â€Å"The more we become masters of our genetic endowments, the greater the burden we bear for the talents we have and the way we perform†? Immediately following this, he mentioned about the future scenario in which a basketball player may be blamed now for missing rebound, but in the future for being short. Here is another reasoning error, for who would hire a small basketball player if not for his exceptional skill? Basketball payers are usually tall, hired for height and skill, so what is saying is another far flung argument. The last argument in favor f genetic engineering he mentioned pondered on the possibilities of enhancing IQ and physical abilities of children. All he said about this is, â€Å"But that promise of mastery is flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift, and to leave us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will.† If it were indeed flawed, then how is it flawed? How can it banish our appreciation of life as a gift? How can he say hat it leaves us with nothing to behold and affirm with our free will when he himself talked about being endowed by nature? He may be right to think that cloning and other forms of genetic engineering have setbacks, but his essay provided arguments that are pro genetic engineering that he failed to counter effectively. References Sandel, M. J. (April 2004). The Case Against Perfection. Retrieved 9 April 2008, from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0056.html)    How to cite The Case against ‘The Case against Perfection’, Essay examples

Medical Ethics Essay Example For Students

Medical Ethics Essay Medical Ethics ? Bioethics comprise every possible aspect of health care, medical, moral, social, political, religious, legal and financial? (Weiss 3). This includes the questions raised by new research. It takes a look at the results of that research that is used on patients. It takes into consideration contemporary ideas of personal freedom and human dignity. It deals with growth in medical services available in the United States and the sky rocketing cost. Bioethics also deals with the medical advances in technology that has reshaped traditional medical ethics. Medical ethics have changed drastically over a period of years. From old commandments to new commandments, guidelines that provide structural framework, classic experiments that challenge that framework, or even how things are defined in medical ethics. ?Medical progress goes on, and the perils of progress must be heeded? (Leone 165). Changing times have in turn changed our codes of ethics. There are five old commandments o f ethics and five new commandments of ethics. These commandments come from many years of heavily advised dictates from various people. A commandment by definition is, ? a dictate or a strongly advised piece of advice? (Halsey 201). The first traditional commandment is, ? Treat all human life as of equal worth? (Singer 190). This statement is very difficult to follow; almost no person believes this statement whole-heartedly. The statement makes more sense on paper or just being heard, but its application in life is almost impossible to ensure. In comparison to the first old ethic, the first new ethic states, ?Recognize that the worth of human life varies? (Singer 190). This statement allows for variation and livability in society. It gives way for someone to say, if a person is a vegetable, has no vital capabilities, this person?s life is of no worth anymore. Without this sort of change in today?s advancing civilization, it would make it ethically wrong to ?pull the plug? (Rothstein 1698.) The next commandment of old ethics is, ? Never intentionally take innocent human life? (Singer 192). If a doctor or any health care professional just stood by during the birth of a child and both the child and the mother were dying, how could that doctor stand there and watch both the mother and the infant die without taking some method of action. However, if that physician were to save either patient while sacrificing the life of the other, that health care professional would be considered unethical and scorned by the standard of this ethical commandment. In comparison, the new commandment states, ?Take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions?(Singer 195). By the token of this declaration a physician can make a choice based on his/her best judgment, yet; be held accountable for their actions. This gives a doctor the power to use his/her best judgment and knowledgeable skills, to do what they believe is best for the patient. This statement allows for a person?s right to free will, even a person who is a Christian may more fully agree with this statement just for the pure reason that they want to believe more in God?s promise of free will in their life. Commandment number four states,? Be fruitful and multiply? (Singer 198). This biblical injunction has been a part of Christian ethics for thousands of years. ? Augustine said that sexual intercourse without procreation ` turns the bridal chamber into a brothel (Singer 198). Some laws in America concerning contraceptives survived until the mid- 1960?s when the Supreme Court declared them invasion of privacy (Madsen 325). The revised commandment number four, ?Bring children into the world only if they are wanted? (Singer 199), allows for population control as well as prevention of children who were never wanted and not loved. From 1930 when the population was two billion to today where the population is over five billion and is expected to rise above eleven billion by the middle of the next c entury. With these kinds of statistics revised dictates, such as this fourth one, are essential. The final of these five old commandments state, ? Treat all human life as always more precious than any non-human life? (Singer 201). If we compare a severely defective human infant with a non-human animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the non-human to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and any other that can plausibly be considered morally significant? (Singer 201). This remark was made during the Baby Doe controversy of the Regan administration. However, in Germany an organization called Lebanshilfe, an organization for parents of intellectually disabled infants has adopted a set of Ethical Foundational Statements one of which is, ?The uniqueness of human life forbids any comparison or, more specifically, equation of human existence with other living beings, with their forms of life or interests? (Singer 202.) The revised counterpart to this commandment states, ? Do not discriminate on the basis of species? (Singer 202). This revised ethic is the one most rejected; it contradicts the fact all human life is of worth and is more sensitive in most people. This sets forth the same message that a sexist or racist would hate, because you are not part of my group you are inferior. These ethical commandments or dictates provide a framework for today?s unstable society. The American Medical Association has devised a set of codes designed to guide researchers in their conduct during experimentation. The American Medical Association?s Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Investigation include:1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random or unnecessary in nature. 3. The experiment should be so designed and based on th e results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.5. No experiment should be conducted when there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote responsibilities of injury, disability or death. 8. The experiment should only be conducted by scientifically qualified persons. the highest degree of skill and care should be required through all st ages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. 9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject (Levine 171-74)Such codes form a conceptual framework for the protection of human subjects. However, these guidelines are very vague for use in actual practice; clearly human experimentation includes much more than just the technical aspects. It includes mental, physical and emotional perspectives that can not be covered on a sheet o f paper; the purpose of a structured written set of guidelines is totally to provide a rulebook by which researchers follow in order to be ethically correct. A researcher gains information through experimentation and they must have these guidelines (McKenzie 287). An example of how these guidelines can assist, but not be of complete structure would be the cancer injections. The Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York is one of the country?s preeminent cancer centers. During the 1950?s and 1960?s they conducted a series of experiments to determine if there was a relationship between cancer and the immune system. The experimental hypothesis was that, ? the immune system of cancer patients is depressed with respect to that specific disease? (Levine 172). The scientists developed a program to test the hypothesis; it was to inject malignant cancer cells into human subjects. We do not know whether the volunteers were really being experimented on under strictly voluntary conditions or not, b ut that is the problem with written guidelines, they work on paper, but not necessarily in life (Levine 173). Must we experiment on human beings? If so, what human experiment categories are ethically correct? Human experimentation falls into three divisions, the first of which is, ? Experiments that the researcher carries out on him or herself ? (Weiss 34). A traditionally excepted example of this was conducted over one-hundred years ago by a scientist set on disproving the fact germs cause disease, The way he decided to prove his idea was to swallow a beakerful of cholera germs. However, he had a natural immunity to cholera; he did not become ill. It was concluded that he had a natural immunity, because it was later proven that cholera is a very harmful germ and if ingested it will cause a person to become ill (Weiss 35). The second category states, ? Experiments carried out on the sick in the belief that the experiment will help them, or on the healthy in the belief that the exper iment will keep them well? (Weiss 35). The classic procedure that demonstrates this category is the experiment of the French scientist Lois Pasteur. In 1885, a distraught mother brought her nine-year old son to Dr. Pasteur. A dog with rabies had bitten the boy, and the mother had heard that Pasteur had developed a vaccine that prevented rabies in dogs. The mother begged Dr. Pasteur to administer the vaccine; he was hesitant and then he obeyed the mother?s wishes and injected the boy, the boy survived the deadly rabid dog bite (Weiss 35). The third group of ethical experimentation is,? Those conducted on the sick or healthy with no intention of helping those people directly? (Weiss 36). These tests are conducted to gain information at a later time. New prescription drugs and new-products fall under this category. These research guidelines have been in existence for years upon years and serve a very practical purpose, to protect everyone who may become sick or of life threatening cond ition, with these guidelines a doctor can try to aide a person within these specifications.The legal aspects of ethics are definitions. How things are defined in ethical terms; a few of the more controversial definitions include brain death, vital signs, death itself, and what a person or human being is. Brain death can be defined as,? when no oxygen is reaching the brain? or more complexly as,? the cessation of brain activity at both cortical and lower levels even though heart and respiratory functions can be maintained mechanically? (Madsen 324, Hudak 371.) However, brain death can be put into more than thirty sets of criteria. (Infopedia) Death can be defined in two ways in the ethical standpoint, first as,? The cessation of life; the ceasing to exist? or as ? the total stopping of circulation of blood and cessation of animal and vital functions? (Singer 21). Death is a very important definition in ethics, with all of our technological advancements we can sustain a person artifi cially and we need to be able to tell when all hope is lost or a person is dead. A vital sign is,? Temperature, pulse, and respiration?s in a person? (Du Gas 158). A vital sign can be,? increasing anoxia; the pupils become dilated and fixed. Low blood pressure and elevated temperature, and rapid respiration rate are often seen also as a sign for a nurse in a recovery situation? (Wagman 337) Medical progressions have significantly increased life expectancy and have also improved quality of life in numerous ways. From organ transplants that save thousands of lives to new machines that can detect life-threatening problems. Organ donors provide the very rare and greatly needed, very rare matches needed for organ transplants. ? Cadaver donors grant permission to donate their organs after they have died. Sometimes permission is granted by the family of the deceased after their relative has died? (Weiss 18). Cadaver donors make up over three fourths of the donors (Hudak 370). There are al so the living donors. As the name indicates, a living related donor is a donor from within the family. The possibility of having a HL-A compatible donor, a tissue match, from within the family should be explored for every potential recipient. The possible combinations include: A 4-antigen match, also called an HL-A identical match, which would have to be a sibling of the potential recipient; a 3-antigen match, which is uncommon since the antigens are usually inherited in pairs or haplotypes; and a 2-antigen match, which is the most frequently seen compatibility. The presence of four completely different antigens is considered a complete mismatch, and is not a desirable situation for a transplant to be performed, since no similarity exists between the tissues (Hudak 370).Once a potential donor is identified, he/she has a thorough medical evaluation to determine that he/she is free of other disease, that he/she has two kidneys, and that donation could no obvious way jeopardize his/her well being. Once this evaluation is successfully completed, a living relative transplant may be performed (Hubak 370). A second type of medical advance is, ? Emission Tomography- this allows doctors to tell in which parts of the brain blood is and is not flowing? (Singer 43). If blood is not flowing to the cortex, then- even though the brain stem might still be functioning and so the patient would not be brain dead and would also never regain consciousness. (Singer 43) This allows a doctor to conclude whether a patient has a chance to recover from a vegetative state or not. Doctors use this technique to assess if surgery would be a possibility or whether this person has no chance of survival; they can establish a base for a family so that they can make appropriate decisions. Invitro fertilization is another form of medical advance that has changed the thinking of traditional ethics. Invitro fertilization is when sperm is taken from a male donor and an egg is taken from a female don or; the sperm is then implanted into the egg and then placed into the women?s uterus. There are many ethical standpoints on invitro fertilization, whether it is right to create a child by manipulating mother nature and using medical technology. Should we use medical science to change what comes naturally in nature (Wall 467)? Also, is invitro fertilization a safe method, on many occasions more than one sperm is placed into the egg, creating multiple pregnancies? With the recent birth or the sextuplets it leaves some in the medical community wondering whether we have gone to far. ? When you have multiple births you have greater risk for complications, it leaves me wondering if the risk is worth it or not (Jones R.N.) ? More progress has been made in medical science in the first seventy years of this century than in the entire previous history of man and the door to knowledge has hardly begun to open? (Collin 164). With so many new inventions and technologies being developed every da y the more each person needs to be aware of how our medical ethics are being changed and what is being done to cope with those changes. Do new codes, dictates or commandments, and guidelines required to provide a structure in the medical community need to be developed? What types of precautions are being taken to check out the experiments being performed? Medical ethics are not just an important factor they are an essential factor in our changing contemporary society. The future of this generation?s children and grandchildren depend on what specifications are being made in the present. Matt Ridley and Genetic Engineering Essay . Medicine Essays