Pre-natal Diagnosis and What Comes After It

Last week in class, we discussed the issue of prenatal diagnosis and genetic testing. I view these methods themselves as very beneficial technologies that can make our lives easier. The bigger issue is what is done after these tests have been done. I think that being able to find out if your child has certain disorders such as Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs can greatly help the family in having time to be able to prepare for the challenges that the disorder can bring. However, I do not believe that this is a case where abortion should be pursued if the child is found to have a genetic anomaly. This is mostly because I think that it would  open doors for parents to be able to abort solely on the basis that the child is not exactly what they want. For example, if they wanted a certain gender or a more intelligent child. That reminds me of the books that we all read in high school about the utopias in which all embryos are genetically developed to be a certain way (Huxley's Brave New World ring a bell?) and it's kind of scary to think things could be heading that way.

As far is the possibility of genetically correcting the DNA when prenatal diagnosis happens, I am still not sure exactly where I stand on that. I think it could pose problems similar to those that arise by aborting genetically abnormal children such as the nonacceptance of having an abnormal child causing psychological distress to the parent or child. However, its not as severe as aborting so it has its positives, too. When I was thinking about it, I realized that if the child that was found to have a certain disorder was born and then we found a cure for it, it would be a no-brainer that we would want to give the child that cure, so why not correct it before the child is even born. Therefore, I find this to be a much better alternative to not taking the pregnancy to term due to a genetic abnormality.

Not Pro-Life OR Pro-Choice? You're not alone.

Concerning the issue of abortion, growing  up being a Catholic and attending church every week, I normally only got to hear one side of the story: that pro-life is the only right way to think, no matter what the case is. Then on the news I would hear the other side of the Pro-Choice activists that were all about the right for women to be able to choose. Naturally, when thinking about where I stood, I felt out of place because I felt like my stance fell somewhere in between. It was especially troubling in junior high and high school when we would have debates for class or papers to write, we were forced to choose one or the other and support that view.  This is why when we started talking about the subject in class and Professor Marable explained that most theories on the issue are in-between ones, I was happy that we wouldn't just be going back and forth between pro-life and pro-choice and why we thought each one is right or wrong. Personally, I found both Marquis's and Thomson's views to be the most fitting for my opinion that abortion is immoral for most cases besides extreme ones such as rape or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Thomson's violinist analogy was very odd but it did bring up a good point I suppose. Overall though, I think abortion is going to be a hot topic in politics for many years to come because there are so many different opinions stemmed from personal or religious beliefs, and what can and can't be regulated, that coming to a consensus on one will be tough.

Physician-Assited Suicide for Healthy People

The thing that struck me the most this week was the story of George and Betty Coumbias. This story did not sit as well with me as the story of Craig Ewert. This is because although the whole idea of their story was romantic and it belongs in a movie, I don't like the real-life implications of it. I'm sure losing your lifelong sweetheart would be a very painful event. However, I don't believe that it is worth losing the rest of your own life over something like this. I think the thing that gets me the most is that I'm sure there are thousands of people out there that would love to have Betty Coumbias's health and she was willing to just throw that away based on someone else's life. I could just feel this way because of the way I've been brought up to never fully rely on someone else to fulfill your own life, but I think there are many other things to live for beyond the life with your spouse. Therefore, I fully agree with the decision of the physician to not approve the couple for the procedure. The end result of Betty passing away before George was very ironic, and the fact that, so far, George is still living kind of shows that the passing of one does not have to mean ending two lives.

Physician Assisted Suicide

In the movie we watched on Tuesday, the thing that struck me the most was also mentioned in class after the movie and it was how Craig was not the type of person that I expected him to be before we watched the video. He did not seem depressed in any way. He seemed more of a realist than anything. Before the movie began, I expected for him to be an extreme pessimist and severely depressed to want to make a decision like he did.  I think that, in part, was why he was a good candidate for the documentary. Another thing that shocked me was how no counseling or psychiatric evaluation was done on Craig before they went through with the procedure. To be honest, I think in his case it wouldn't have done any good because his disease was quickly progressing and making him endure it longer than he wanted goes against the whole point of the procedure in the first place. Overall, after watching this movie, I am not sure where I stand on the issue but I think I lean more toward it being legalized than before I watched the video. However, its something that will require great time reflecting on the different aspects such as religion and the Hippocratic oath before I could come up with a solid opinion one way or the other.

Physician vs. Scientist

The thing that caught my attention the most this week was in talking about research in the medical field. I was absolutely shocked to realize that studies such as the Tuskegee study and others have happened so recently in our nation's history. I understand that in the past, our culture as a whole has had some truly bad judgements on what is moral and immoral as shown by our history of slavery, racism, etc. but we never think of things like that occurring in today's society.

The one topic that I thought could use some expanding upon was the roles of physicians when it comes to research in medicine. We compared their role as a physician vs their role as a scientist but I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. Although they have different general goals with the physician's being the best treatment and the scientist's being best data, I think the ultimate goal is for doctors to pursue both goals at the same time. We talked about how the physician is not really giving the patient's treatment first priority if that patient is in the control group, but I think this is untrue because once the study is over, if the treatment was found to be effective, even the control group can then be benefited by receiving it. Therefore, I believe research such as this done by a physician is morally permissible to do as long as there has been enough background research done as well as trials with mice to ensure that the patients will not be critically harmed.

There's a drug for that...

This week in class we discussed Ritalin and it's skyrocketed usage in our country. After reading the section on the book about it, I couldn't believe how dramatically the use of it has risen. For a few reasons, I have always seen Ritalin as an unnecessary evil. I feel that it is a good drug in theory, but it gets used in the wrong sense much too often to be safe. For example, my freshman year here at Alma, one of my friends (who I won't name) had a really long paper to write for the next day and it was getting to be really last minute so one of her other friends had ADD and had Ritalin that she sold to her. I think this is a prime example of how this drug gets used in the wrong way and although it can help healthy people, that is not the intention of the drug.

We came up with many negatives to the drug such as: no studies done on long-term usage by children, that it changes personality, and that it's just a quick fix for a more complex underlying issue. I think that parents are more apt to get their child tested for ADD now than they were in the past because they do not want to be seen as poor parents if their child is doing below average in school. So in that way, Ritalin becomes a fall-back excuse. I know it sounds cliche but I feel like back even when I was in elementary school, kids were disciplined if they got really bad grades and they shaped up and started working harder to turn things around. It seems like this is kind of going out the door in today's society. As we were comparing this situation to anti-depressants, I couldn't help but think that the two are interconnected in this way. Our culture is driving us to try to be perfect all the time, leading to the dramatic increase in both of these drugs that should supposedly cure it.

To Hear or Not To Hear

We discussed cochlear implants in class this week and at first, as Professor Marable was explaining it, I couldn't come up with a reason why this technology would be a bad thing. We brought up the debate to whether it was a disability or a difference and at first I was strongly sided to the disability argument. However, by the end of class after the videos that he showed and everything we learned about Deaf culture, I have decided that I believe being deaf is a new category: disadvantage. Technically, it is hard to argue that it's not a disability by the dictionary definition: "dis·a·bil·i·ty: A physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities." However, I will still call it a disadvantage. The way I look at it, a condition that I would compare it to would be dwarfism because our world is dominated by hearing, normal height people, and some accommodations are made for the small or deaf. It was very inspiring to learn about the people that are deaf and are completely happy being that way in the video he showed us.

I recently met someone that is deaf through a mutual friend and although it was a little bit awkward due to the lack of direct communication that could happen, I'm very glad I met him. He was a speaking deaf person so he could talk to me but I couldn't communicate back to him without the help of the mutual friend that acted as a translator. He played football at Gallaudet University and now coaches at Michigan School for the Deaf, which I thought is really cool that he's able to do that because football is not something you think of as a silent sport by any means. Also, another thing that struck me was that he told us that he liked our music because he could kind of hear and feel the lower bass sounds.

 So now for my personal stance on cochlear implants. I think that if I had a child today that was deaf, I would get him or her cochlear implants as an infant. I just think that if it were me, I would want the option to hear. I feel that if a child that has cochlear implants grows up and wants to learn sign language and return to the Deaf culture, then they have every right to do so; but I also think they should have the option to remain hearing. Although the point got brought up that they are only 70% effective, that can dramatically increase over time with more tests and advancements, just like every other new technology out there. Maybe even someday being deaf will be a thing of the past if the implants become mainstreamed enough. What do you think about using cochlear implants to eliminate deafness?


P.S. How could you not think cochlear implants are a great thing with videos like this out there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzTt1VnHRM&feature=related

Case Study 5

This case study presents an issue of the paternalism of the health-care professionals and family of the patient restricting the patient's autonomy. I think the approach taken by the medical professionals in this situation was morally reprehensible for a few different reasons. First, I believe the doctor does not have the right to override a competent patient's wishes based on the patient's family's opinions or his own. Ronald X was perfectly aware and understanding of the risks he faces living at home alone with his condition and should keep his right for autonomy concerning his living situation. Also, I found the last sentence especially worrisome because when Ronald still disagreed with his family and the physician, they sedated him so that he would comply; I thought this was a rather extreme method which was unjustified and further contributed to the stripping of his autonomy by external constraints. I feel the doctor only carries the right to compel a patient to live in a nursing home if that patient’s health is in immediate danger from living at home, which Ronald’s was not. Personally if I found myself in that situation, I would urge Ronald to consider a nursing home as an option for his own safety or advise him to talk to his children about other options such as one of them coming to live with him or hiring an at-home nurse so he can maintain some of his independence living in his own home while also being safe.