The issue we addressed in class about the Mutter Museum, I believe, is being over sensitized. We asked, is it truly people who care about the medical profession that are using this museum, or is it just people who want to see a modern day freak show. I feel as though the educational aspect of the freak show concept can be just as educational as sitting someone down and explaining how offensive they are. Truly, it cannot be denied that someone going to a museum to see the deformed remains of others is offensive, however, when one out of the ten people who go to see these remains learns something more about the disease or affliction, and generates sympathy for the person who was afflicted, I feel it is worth it.
If we want to get upset about people using the museum as a freak show, you're starting in on a discussion about morals and beliefs. Of course it is wrong for someone to go to simply gawk at a skeleton, but is it for us to decide they are therefore evil people for displaying the artifacts in the museum? I think not, and I whole heartedly agree that the owners of the museum are not at fault for displaying these remains, but rather that the people who come to gawk should respect the dead.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Mensturation, a natural act
When we began talking about women who are ashamed of their own mensuration because of the way in which the medical profession portrays the process, I did some research on my own and found the following trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-MNdxSqns
I wish we had time to watch this movie in class and discuss it further. It seeks to analyze the negative image of menstruation in different cultures, looking at how those images have appeared, and what the impact of that image has been over time. The varied views, opinions, and outlooks on menstruation are different worldwide, and comparing and contrasting these different views, as well as looking at who is the authority in each of these areas and how that effects their decisions would be very beneficial for our class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-MNdxSqns
I wish we had time to watch this movie in class and discuss it further. It seeks to analyze the negative image of menstruation in different cultures, looking at how those images have appeared, and what the impact of that image has been over time. The varied views, opinions, and outlooks on menstruation are different worldwide, and comparing and contrasting these different views, as well as looking at who is the authority in each of these areas and how that effects their decisions would be very beneficial for our class.
Midwifery and the Medical Industry
For as worldly as I like to think that I am, I cannot honestly say that I had any real idea of what a midwife was. Midwives are clearly portrayed almost similar to witch doctors by the American Medical field, something which is very concerning. The purpose of a medical system should be to help those who are sick or in need of help, not to make the highest profit. But it would appear that the Medical Authority has sought to destroy this by driving out midwives, trained professionals designed specifically for the easing of women's issues, especially childbirth, and promoting physicians who levy massive bills against the "patient".
The other issue at work here is that women who are giving birth are NOT patients. There is nothing medically wrong with them, giving birth is as natural as natural can be and yet the medical profession has found yet another way to attempt to shame women for the natural processes of their bodies and give them a negative self image medically and physically. I'd be very interested to watch a documentary made by the medial profession in response to the one we watched, however, I feel that there is a truly indefensible position on the part of the Medical Industry who seeks only to exploit.
The other issue at work here is that women who are giving birth are NOT patients. There is nothing medically wrong with them, giving birth is as natural as natural can be and yet the medical profession has found yet another way to attempt to shame women for the natural processes of their bodies and give them a negative self image medically and physically. I'd be very interested to watch a documentary made by the medial profession in response to the one we watched, however, I feel that there is a truly indefensible position on the part of the Medical Industry who seeks only to exploit.
The Devil's Advocate
As we engaged in discussions about the ethics of medical research, we began a sort of Machiavellian argument over whether the ends of medical research justified the means. While the argument didn't extend too far before we changed the subject, I'd like to address that a little further.
Modern day medical research requires clear and true consent. A perfect example can be seen in our own OSCAR Expo, in which all presentations which include medical experimentation with human test subjects must have been approved by the Institutional Research Board or IRB. This heavily regulated consent structure was the result of several events, such as the Tuskegee Siphillus Experiments, as well as many others. So when we look at ends justifying the means lets have a few examples:
In World War II, much like Dr. Mengele in Nazi Germany, the Japanese committed several war crimes by experimenting on human beings to test poisons, weapons, chemicals, and many other things. The innovations the Japanese discovered were not, however, all weaponized, and in fact a lot of important medical breakthroughs were achieved by the Japanese doctors. So, to use this Machiavellian lens with which we approached the topic in the past, if 100 innocent people were saved by these medical innovations, and 20 soldiers were killed in the process, or even just harmed, was it worth it? From a utilitarian stand point, this would always be true, but when we are speaking on human morality, it's clearly an individual decision. What do you think?
Modern day medical research requires clear and true consent. A perfect example can be seen in our own OSCAR Expo, in which all presentations which include medical experimentation with human test subjects must have been approved by the Institutional Research Board or IRB. This heavily regulated consent structure was the result of several events, such as the Tuskegee Siphillus Experiments, as well as many others. So when we look at ends justifying the means lets have a few examples:
In World War II, much like Dr. Mengele in Nazi Germany, the Japanese committed several war crimes by experimenting on human beings to test poisons, weapons, chemicals, and many other things. The innovations the Japanese discovered were not, however, all weaponized, and in fact a lot of important medical breakthroughs were achieved by the Japanese doctors. So, to use this Machiavellian lens with which we approached the topic in the past, if 100 innocent people were saved by these medical innovations, and 20 soldiers were killed in the process, or even just harmed, was it worth it? From a utilitarian stand point, this would always be true, but when we are speaking on human morality, it's clearly an individual decision. What do you think?
Life and Death: When Henrietta Became HeLA
Upon reading the majority of our readings for this week I realized that once I started reading the book The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks I couldn't put it down. A black woman who seemed to live life to the fullest even in poverty see still became caught in the web of medical spider's grasp. Upon self and actual medical examination a relatively harsh form of cervical cancer ravaged this young woman's body. Even though in the beginning it seemed John Hopkins was trying to help her she still died which will later to said was due to an extremely large overdose of radium for her treatment. In any normal case you might think that the book would have been over there. This was not the case due to experimental scientists realizing that the cancer cells of Henrietta's cervix not only survived but continued to grow leading to an almost 50 year study of how the cells acted under difference situations. The cells like people saw the history of America in so many different ways including the atomic era. However, as this book will show what is good for science is not necessarily good for humankind. The family Henrietta left behind became lost in members of society even having other family member destroy them mentally beyond repair. It really makes you question if you had the choice would you try help science upon your death bed or would you do everything in your power to leave what little memory people have of you to their memories and not spending their lives looking for cells that just happened to come from you? For me even if my situation was similar to Henrietta's I would want my memory to be with those who knew me and I don't think I would want any of my potential children trying to look for me when I am gone for good and there is no real chance of getting me back. I would just want them to live their lives as much as I tried to live mine.
William Webster
William Webster
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Human Injustice
My post for last week concerns the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. After engaging in the class discussion I can say that I was thoroughly surprised to hear about such an experiment. Now I understand that this was a completely different time period from what we live in today.
I think that we should all understand that during this time period black people were not even considered to be remotely equal to whites. Moreover, the racial segregation they faced would not be overcome for decades to come. With this in mind I'd still like to point out that it was an act of injustice to people. Regardless of race this kind of testing should not be tolerated.
It is unethical to us, but perhaps not to those living in the time period. However, in today's day and age we can recognize that each human being is born with certain rights that should not be infringed upon. Hence the reason I felt that it was an unjust act to administer such a detrimental disease into the test subjects' bodies. So to summarize, this act was unethical, and unjust to invade a human being's natural born rights, and now that we know, we can prevent such injustices from happening in the future.
I think that we should all understand that during this time period black people were not even considered to be remotely equal to whites. Moreover, the racial segregation they faced would not be overcome for decades to come. With this in mind I'd still like to point out that it was an act of injustice to people. Regardless of race this kind of testing should not be tolerated.
It is unethical to us, but perhaps not to those living in the time period. However, in today's day and age we can recognize that each human being is born with certain rights that should not be infringed upon. Hence the reason I felt that it was an unjust act to administer such a detrimental disease into the test subjects' bodies. So to summarize, this act was unethical, and unjust to invade a human being's natural born rights, and now that we know, we can prevent such injustices from happening in the future.
Mid-wives would you really choose differently?
My article this week will deal with the issue of Mid-wives. After our class discussion concerning mid-wives and watching the video "The Business of Being Born" it made me look at life in a MUCH different way. I can also undoubtedly say that I never need to witness another child birth for a very long time.
But on a serious note, one of the main points that we discussed in class was whether or not it is fair to women, not to provide more options in child birth, particularly here in the states. It was bewildering to me how the United States can have such a poor infant mortality rate despite the fact that we have some of the best medical technology available in the world. This brings the matter of choice to the forefront. While people may debate that choices are too few and far between for pregnant women in the states, I'd like to say that I don't believe it would make much of a difference.
If a woman wants to have a mid-wife deliver her baby bad enough, then she will find the resources to do so. Secondly, even if the idea of using a mid-wife became more prevalent in American society, I still believe that if women had the choice, that America is so centered and focused on medically safe procedures that they'd still choose the hospitals to deliver their baby over a mid-wife anyway. The idea of already being in a hospital in the event of a medical emergency or mishap most likely seems safer to most Americans, and thus, the norm would not change, even with the possibility of an alternative form of child delivery.
But on a serious note, one of the main points that we discussed in class was whether or not it is fair to women, not to provide more options in child birth, particularly here in the states. It was bewildering to me how the United States can have such a poor infant mortality rate despite the fact that we have some of the best medical technology available in the world. This brings the matter of choice to the forefront. While people may debate that choices are too few and far between for pregnant women in the states, I'd like to say that I don't believe it would make much of a difference.
If a woman wants to have a mid-wife deliver her baby bad enough, then she will find the resources to do so. Secondly, even if the idea of using a mid-wife became more prevalent in American society, I still believe that if women had the choice, that America is so centered and focused on medically safe procedures that they'd still choose the hospitals to deliver their baby over a mid-wife anyway. The idea of already being in a hospital in the event of a medical emergency or mishap most likely seems safer to most Americans, and thus, the norm would not change, even with the possibility of an alternative form of child delivery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)