The health care debate is a furious one raging in our country today. There are many voices, many opinions and conflicting points of view. No solution will present a perfect answer to such a large problem. Millions of Americans are without health insurance. Millions more, cannot gain access to health care due to health insurance company practices. America spends more on its health care system than any nation in the world, yet ranks thirty-seventh overall in care by the World health organization, just ahead of Serbia. There can be no debate, that overhaul is needed.
However, after a good deal of research on the issue, and considerable soul-searching, I believe that we need the current proposals by congress. To not act, would cause irreparable harm to the financial health of our nation, and continue a vicious cycle that leaves millions without access to the care they need.
There are several issues that will be discussed. The impact of the current system on our economy, the lack of effectiveness of the opposition's plans for health care, and finally, the benefits and provisions of the health proposals by Democrats in Congress.
First, there should be no debate that we desperately need reform now. Our health system is the most expensive in the world at 2.5 trillion dollars a year. The budget for health care, Medicaid, Medicare, and related programs is the single, largest expense in the federal budget. According to the Congressional budget office, Health care costs will only continue to skyrocket in time. America pays too much for what we get out of the health care system. Under current practices, Insurance companies can deny coverage at any time to anyone, under the guise of as pre-existing condition. This can leave Millions of Americans who are paying extraordinary amounts of money in health premiums, without care or coverage at any given time. A Study done by Harvard medical and published in the New york times concluded that roughly 44,000 people a year in the U.S. die from lack of coverage. There can be no question in the minds of Americans that reform is needed.
There are several proposals in Congress for health reform. Some offer a public option, essentially an insurance company run by the Federal Government to offer competition to the private insurance companies. Critics of this idea argue that such a plan would put the private sector out of business and pave the way for complete socialized medicine. There are also statements that this sort of system would lead to a "rationing of health care" and "death panels" that would determine what care you can and cannot receive. The fallacy of these arguments, is that they fail to recognize the rationing that already exists by the private insurance companies under the loophole of discrimination based upon a pre-existing condition. Aside from these matters, there have been very few counter-proposals to Democratic plans in Congress. The few plans that have been proposed, would grant tax credits to average Americans to purchase their own health insurance on the private market. The average plan for a family of four is estimated by several agencies to cost $13,000 a year. Americans can't afford that, especially in a time of economic crises.
Now, the current proposal favored by many Democrats in Congress involves the aforementioned public option. This would create a Government-run insurance company that would offer subsidized coverage for American families and businesses to purchase. Opponents of it say it would put the private sector out of business. Without it however, the private sector would not have any incentive to cut costs, and lower premiums for Americans. This government insurance company would be just like the medicare system, except Americans would pay into it at rates lower then their current premiums. The Federal Government, unlike the private sector, would be running this program at cost only, and not for profit. The end result of such a policy, is lower premiums for Americans and their families, lower costs for businesses, and more money back into the hands of average Americans, instead of insurance companies. Contrary to claims by critics, individuals would still be able to go to the doctor of their choice, the hospital of their choice, the only difference between the government plan, and the current options, are lower costs. This plan would also not be allowed to add to the federal deficit, because under a renewed act by congress, it must be paid for in full. Critics of this plan also assert that individuals will be forced immediately into the public plan. This plan does not do away with insurance companies. President Obama and leading democrats in Congress have stated that it will not be subsidized at impossible-to-compete-with rates.
In closing, there have always been opponents of progress. There have been, and always will be special interest groups that work tirelessly to defeat any kind of reform that threatens their standing at the top of the social and economic order. There will always be skeptics who say that it cannot be done. Yet we must push forward, to create a lasting future for our children and our country. Failure to act will leave Americans with a mounting of costs that will cripple us for years to come. The health insurance reform in Congress is the best option for lowering health insurance costs, creating reasonable competition to encourage the private sector to lower their premiums, and ensuring that Americans can once again enter into a new era of lasting economic growth and prosperity. This is the dream and promise of America, that it can, and always should be, "That shining city on the hill"
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Questions for students to answer individually
1. What aspects of this course best support your learning? "The in-class time that provides opportunity to discuss the previous week's course and what was learned so I can put together all the pieces in easier to understand language"
2. What is one thing you would change about this course to further support your learning? "Bi-monthly or monthly tests on what was learned, to show progress and to help prepare for final exams"
3. What is one thing you can do to improve your learning performance in this course? " Spend more time on studying other sections of the book besides required reading"
2. What is one thing you would change about this course to further support your learning? "Bi-monthly or monthly tests on what was learned, to show progress and to help prepare for final exams"
3. What is one thing you can do to improve your learning performance in this course? " Spend more time on studying other sections of the book besides required reading"
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Conrad Keezer's Journal number four,
In Chapter fourteen, we are introduced to a new way of writing; A classical argument. This style of writing focuses on persuading your audience, who may initially be opposed, or supportive of your position before reading your paper. There Are two main aspects of this. First, the ability to seek out the truth. A writer must be committed to this at all times, to be able to let go of one's own certainties, in favor of finding the truth of an issue. However, the next critical function is the ability to be certain of our position and claims, and to get others to change their views on the subject.
When making an argument, a writer will most probably make unstated assumptions about the values and beliefs of the audience. When the writer makes this assumption, which could be spelled out in the thesis of the argument, the writer also may need to more accurately define their claim in the thesis. The audience may disagree with this unstated assumption, and unless the writer states it, and defends it, then the whole argument could collapse.
In using evidence for an argument, there are several methods that a writer can use. The first example could be something from personal experience. Having an emotional connection to an event may offer the writer an advantage on an issue, and an added ability to appeal to an audience.
Another method would be to summarize a research paper that someone else did, and to include it in your paper. This could also be very effective because having a research paper, especially if it is from a prestigious source, could go a long way to backing up your claim in the argument.
The Writer could also use statistics that have been done by other independent agencies to support or verify their claims. Statistics could be quite helpful in this manner.
When using these various methods, a writer must ensure several points. That the articles are Recent, the articles cited should be the most up to date information available on a subject. Relevant; the sources should be relevant to the point you are making, and should not deter the course of the argument. Impartial; While it may be difficult to obtain completely impartial evidence, evidence that is obtained from scholarly journals is more impartial then perhaps a newspaper article, that may carry a bias in the issue. Sufficient; the Writer should have several different sources to make a justification of a point, this will help prevent hasty generalizations.
In Writing a classical argument, appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are key as well. Using vivid language for pathos and providing powerful examples are two elements that can help an argument. However, something important to remember is that when a writer is making an appeal to Pathos, it is most effective as an appeal to the audience's values and beliefs.
There are also several types of argument methods. There are Definitional issues, particular cases or events that fit into a certain category. Causal issues, issues that ask a question about a policy or idea, and try and figure out what the results of that idea or policy are.
Overall, a review of chapter fourteen shows that the focus of the chapter, is to help an individual develop skills to understand, and write a classical argument.
When making an argument, a writer will most probably make unstated assumptions about the values and beliefs of the audience. When the writer makes this assumption, which could be spelled out in the thesis of the argument, the writer also may need to more accurately define their claim in the thesis. The audience may disagree with this unstated assumption, and unless the writer states it, and defends it, then the whole argument could collapse.
In using evidence for an argument, there are several methods that a writer can use. The first example could be something from personal experience. Having an emotional connection to an event may offer the writer an advantage on an issue, and an added ability to appeal to an audience.
Another method would be to summarize a research paper that someone else did, and to include it in your paper. This could also be very effective because having a research paper, especially if it is from a prestigious source, could go a long way to backing up your claim in the argument.
The Writer could also use statistics that have been done by other independent agencies to support or verify their claims. Statistics could be quite helpful in this manner.
When using these various methods, a writer must ensure several points. That the articles are Recent, the articles cited should be the most up to date information available on a subject. Relevant; the sources should be relevant to the point you are making, and should not deter the course of the argument. Impartial; While it may be difficult to obtain completely impartial evidence, evidence that is obtained from scholarly journals is more impartial then perhaps a newspaper article, that may carry a bias in the issue. Sufficient; the Writer should have several different sources to make a justification of a point, this will help prevent hasty generalizations.
In Writing a classical argument, appeals to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are key as well. Using vivid language for pathos and providing powerful examples are two elements that can help an argument. However, something important to remember is that when a writer is making an appeal to Pathos, it is most effective as an appeal to the audience's values and beliefs.
There are also several types of argument methods. There are Definitional issues, particular cases or events that fit into a certain category. Causal issues, issues that ask a question about a policy or idea, and try and figure out what the results of that idea or policy are.
Overall, a review of chapter fourteen shows that the focus of the chapter, is to help an individual develop skills to understand, and write a classical argument.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Rough draft of Sum/Response
Rough Draft of Sum/Response for Conrad Keezer's Composition class, fall 2009
Bureaucracy? Or Opinion? "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care" Posted on September 8, 2009, In a Wall street journal opinion section, Former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument?
First off, Sarah Palin, in her op-ed article, appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. This fits in with the much-opposed health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress, and the near unanimous opposition from major Republican Senators and Representatives.
Ms. Palin then proceeds to appeal to populist support, and show a sense of compassion regarding the un-insured. She refers to a statement made by former President Ronald Reagan that People should not be denied medical care because of lacking the finances to cover them. She also states that we as a people have an obligation to care for the old, and the sick who cannot care for themselves.
She then proceeds to make a case for the business community, by acknowledging the "crippling expenses of health care". She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit. She argues that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making these points, she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, that having been said, Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument, and the Wall street journal is a prestigious news source used by millions of Americans, and businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.
For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Furthermore, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. This is correct. According to director Elmendorf in a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given the nature of the Cato institute, that it is a pro-conservative organization that is opposed to the current health reform proposals, one should take into account this bias when reading their information.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logos here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
So then, in closing, was Sarah Palin's article an effective one? Did it make me challenge my beliefs or ideas about health care? Are her statements accurate and unbiased? And did she adequately use fact to support her position? It is my belief that she did not have an effective combination of these elements. As a writer, she does use good research with some of her arguments, however, there is a possibility that not all of what she states is entirely accurate.
Bureaucracy? Or opinion? Let the reader decide.
Bureaucracy? Or Opinion? "Obama and the Bureaucratization of health care" Posted on September 8, 2009, In a Wall street journal opinion section, Former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin asserts that President Obama's proposals at health care reform will create an enormous, inefficient, and ethically questionable bureaucracy. Does her opinion have evidence? Or is it strictly argument?
First off, Sarah Palin, in her op-ed article, appeals to the conservative base of her party by stating the President's proposals for health care reform as "Bureaucratic" in nature. This fits in with the much-opposed health care reform attempts by Democrats in Congress, and the near unanimous opposition from major Republican Senators and Representatives.
Ms. Palin then proceeds to appeal to populist support, and show a sense of compassion regarding the un-insured. She refers to a statement made by former President Ronald Reagan that People should not be denied medical care because of lacking the finances to cover them. She also states that we as a people have an obligation to care for the old, and the sick who cannot care for themselves.
She then proceeds to make a case for the business community, by acknowledging the "crippling expenses of health care". She also states that allowing government health care spending to continue unabated will add to the federal budget deficit. She argues that the current medicare and medicaid programs are wrought with waste and inefficiency. Ms. Palin then cites an article from the Congressional budget office that indicates that the current legislation in congress will do little to deter federal health spending. She also states that the legislation creates an independent advisory council that is "unelected, and largely unaccountable" that is given the task of reducing costs. She refers to such a council as a "death Panel" in her op-ed article.
After making these points, she summarizes her thoughts in the last few paragraphs. She states that the health care reform will lead to lower wages for American workers, unwanted influence of government power in ordinary citizen's lives, uncontrollable deficits, and take the individual power of medical choice out of the hands of Americans.
Now, that having been said, Sarah Palin does have credibility to her argument, and the Wall street journal is a prestigious news source used by millions of Americans, and businessmen and women. However, She does intermingle a good deal of fact, with opinion.
For example, the Medicare advisory council, that Ms. Palin asserts is a completely new entity that would bring about "rationing of care" and "death panels" is not a new entity at all. In a published letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer on page 3, the director of the congressional budget office states that the individuals, who would have to be physicians, or specialists in health care, would be appointed by the president, and only approved of if the Senate passes them. Furthermore, any actions proposed by the Medicare advisory council, would have to be approved by the secretary of health and human services, and the President. Furthermore, on page four of the letter, the CBO also states that the council would not have a set target of budget cuts, and there would not be a requirement to deny care due to budget circumstances.
The next fact that Sarah Palin asserts is a quote from the congressional budget office that the current health care proposals will not generate much savings. This is correct. According to director Elmendorf in a letter to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the current proposal would not bring about much in the way of cost savings.
Ms. Palin also takes information provided by the Cato institute to make her argument that such health care reform would result in lower wages. This is a debatable subject, and given the nature of the Cato institute, that it is a pro-conservative organization that is opposed to the current health reform proposals, one should take into account this bias when reading their information.
In all, Ms. Palin's article does contain some fact, and some strict argument and opinion. Throughout her article, she uses various methods of connecting with the audience. Some of these methods include appealing to emotion, logic and reasoning, and ethical arguments.
At the onset of her article, Ms. Palin quotes former President Reagan on the need to ensure that everyone can get medical care. She then proceeds to make the argument for the responsibility of society to care for the sick and the elderly, and those who cannot care for themselves. This kind of argument will appeal to those people who feel that there is a moral duty of society to care for these groups of people. This is a strong appeal to the Evangelical base of her party, and is a recurring theme with many of the Evangelical-Christians in the party base.
Ms. Palin also makes an appeal to logos here, by citing examples from the Congressional budget office, and the Cato institute studies done on health care. She could be trying to appeal to moderates and independents that are on the sidelines of the health care debate by using independent sources that aren't directly affiliated with either party.
Perhaps her most potent argument now, comes from the emotional side of the issue. Many members of her party base have a distrust of the government. If not a distrust, then at least a deep skepticism on the ability, and competency of the government to operate. She appeals to this base again with the statements that while insurance companies can be unaccountable, the federal government is perhaps even more so. Now, this part of her article involves much opinion, and contention. However, it is most probably very effective for the base of her party that questions the efficiency, and even honesty of the federal government. She continues to claim in the article that many of the proposals from the democrats will increase the deficit, decrease the earnings of everyday Americans through inflation, and "increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats". Again, all of this is more opinion then fact. Independent agencies and fact check organizations have not verified these claims with any certainty, so they should be taken at best with a grain of salt.
At the end of her article, Ms. Palin states that despite President Obama's promise to the contrary, the current health reforms will not provide more stability to American families and individuals. Again, this could be a very debatable subject here, depending on the audience receiving it. There are legitimate points to her article, she uses some credible evidence to support her argument, and makes a strong emotional and ethical appeal. However, all of these facts may become clouded by the simple reality that her description of the "death panels" does little to appeal to logic, due to it being untrue, and does not broaden her appeal to audiences beyond the base.
As an audience member, I appreciate the appeal to logic by using findings from independent groups, however they were too few and far between to be an effective argument on the subject for me. Also, due to the fact that her claims about the Medicare advisory panels were inaccurate, I have not been swayed by this article to her position.
So then, in closing, was Sarah Palin's article an effective one? Did it make me challenge my beliefs or ideas about health care? Are her statements accurate and unbiased? And did she adequately use fact to support her position? It is my belief that she did not have an effective combination of these elements. As a writer, she does use good research with some of her arguments, however, there is a possibility that not all of what she states is entirely accurate.
Bureaucracy? Or opinion? Let the reader decide.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Reflective analysis
In my analysis of Ms. Palin's article, I chose the health care topic because it is a current, and important issue. My hope, is that anyone who reads my paper will have at least, a little more understanding of the issue than they did before. Writing this paper, I analyzed this debate and the subject thoroughly. With this analysis came a greater understanding of the major players in the debate, and their individual influences, biases, and beliefs. In every debate, in every subject, world view will affect how one views a particular issue. I want my audience to understand this concept well, to grasp it, and to analyze and critique by themselves what other people have to think about an issue. The ability to do this, to question everything that is spoken, especially on the public scale, is important to being able to dig for the truth, and to understanding what kinds of viewpoints people have, and how they affect their arguments.
In reviewing my paper, I also learned several important aspects of writing a paper. For example, I made several revisions to paragraph structure, and also changed where I placed content and analysis. When I re-analyzed my paper, after receiving peer reviews, I restructured several of the opening paragraphs and combined them into the summary of Ms. Palin's article, which accomplishes several objectives. It makes the overall paper more reader-friendly, and eliminates a large section of repetitious statements. I also changed my conclusion to make a summary of my paper, and a closing statement that reflected the opening paragraph. In several cases in my paper, I used Ms. Palin's evidential arguments, and intensely scrutinized them. I brought out my findings on her evidence in my paper, and showed that in some cases, the facts did not appear to line up; in others, her evidence was conclusive and solid. My paper focused most on an analysis of her appeals to logic, and emotion, and the people groups affected and targeted by these appeals.
It is important to recognize how one's own argument can be perceived. With what "voice" they use. I have worked to indicate a voice that is as calm, and objective as I can possibly be. My approach to this situation, is similar to how I approach other issues that are divisive and multi-faceted. In every case with a controversial subject, one should strive to appeal to the audience in a logical, reasonable way. In cases, appeal to emotion is important; indeed several of the reforms made in history have come because of emotional appeal. I have, however, aimed for a calm and logical appeal in my paper, without much use of pathos in analyzing Ms. Palin's article.
While my personal belief did not change with the critical analysis of this paper, it did challenge me to make sure I consider all sides of every debate before making an assumption. It is easy to simply listen to one side of an issue, and make a decision about it before hearing completely what the other side has to say.
I have spent considerable effort on this paper, but have also learned a great deal doing so. In the future, it is my hope that I will be able to reflect upon the lessons learned here, to better my writing skills an abilities.
In reviewing my paper, I also learned several important aspects of writing a paper. For example, I made several revisions to paragraph structure, and also changed where I placed content and analysis. When I re-analyzed my paper, after receiving peer reviews, I restructured several of the opening paragraphs and combined them into the summary of Ms. Palin's article, which accomplishes several objectives. It makes the overall paper more reader-friendly, and eliminates a large section of repetitious statements. I also changed my conclusion to make a summary of my paper, and a closing statement that reflected the opening paragraph. In several cases in my paper, I used Ms. Palin's evidential arguments, and intensely scrutinized them. I brought out my findings on her evidence in my paper, and showed that in some cases, the facts did not appear to line up; in others, her evidence was conclusive and solid. My paper focused most on an analysis of her appeals to logic, and emotion, and the people groups affected and targeted by these appeals.
It is important to recognize how one's own argument can be perceived. With what "voice" they use. I have worked to indicate a voice that is as calm, and objective as I can possibly be. My approach to this situation, is similar to how I approach other issues that are divisive and multi-faceted. In every case with a controversial subject, one should strive to appeal to the audience in a logical, reasonable way. In cases, appeal to emotion is important; indeed several of the reforms made in history have come because of emotional appeal. I have, however, aimed for a calm and logical appeal in my paper, without much use of pathos in analyzing Ms. Palin's article.
While my personal belief did not change with the critical analysis of this paper, it did challenge me to make sure I consider all sides of every debate before making an assumption. It is easy to simply listen to one side of an issue, and make a decision about it before hearing completely what the other side has to say.
I have spent considerable effort on this paper, but have also learned a great deal doing so. In the future, it is my hope that I will be able to reflect upon the lessons learned here, to better my writing skills an abilities.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Stem cell research
Stem Cell research opinion of Conrad Keezer.
There is much debate about whether or not it should be considered "Ethical" to fund stem cell research. First, I'd like to make a differentiation. There are at least two types of major stem cell research. Embryonic, the more well known and controversial one, and Adult stem cell research, the less known, and hardly controversial method.
First, I'd like to state the failings of embryonic stem cell research before going into details about adult stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is not only controversial, but arguably less successful than adult stem cell research. One case that happened as recently as February of this year involved a young boy who had a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia. He received an embryonic stem cell treatment for his condition. Four years later he developed severe headaches and was found to have several tumors in his brain and spinal cord. The results of the tests of the tumors show that they genetically matched the embryos used in his treatment.
Now, according to Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former director of the national institutes of health, and once an ardent embryonic stem cell supporter, this case is the fear of many doctors and scientists. Embryonic stem cells often have the potential to mutate into cancerous cells which, while most of the time benign, can cause damage, and sometimes grow as large as a football. Despite best attempts to control and discipline these cells in the laboratory, they still can run wildly out of control, growing into tumors.
Another major problem of these types of stem cells are the rejection of them by the body's immune system. Addressing a convention in Wisconsin in 2007, Dr. James Thomson from the university of Wisconsin stated that this research was still "decades away" from become practical. He did not blame it on federal bans, or a lack of funding, rather a simple fact of biology. Among other problems he stated with the research, was the need for continuous use of dangerous immunosuppressive drugs to ensure that the recipient's own body doesn't reject the tissue and cause massive complications. Another advocate for Embryonic stem cell research, William Hastletine, a former CEO of human genome sciences stated to the press in France in the year 2001 that "The routine utilization of embryonic stem cell research is 20 to 30 years away" and that it would take so long to commercialize the research as products that he would simply not invest in it. Dr. Bernadine Healy also stated that Embryonic stem cell research is simply "obsolete"
My final argument against embryonic stem cell research will be on the bioethical side of the issue. There is a great deal of controversy and debate about the ethicality of using embryos for research. Charles Krauthammer, a former member of the President's council on bioethics stated that he does not believe that human life begins at conception, and that he does not agree with religious arguments against this research. However, he also said that "many secularly inclined people such as myself have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation -- to the point of dismemberment -- of human embryos. You don't need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good."
So, while human embryonic stem cell research is not only facing scientific barriers, it is facing growing ethical barriers from not only the Religious community, but also from the Secular community. As Society continues to become more educated on this issue, the trend seems to be forming that more people are growing opposed to embryonic stem cell research for not only moral reasons, but also for practical scientific reasons.
Now, I will make my argument for the continued funding and support for Adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are currently in use and have been for several years. Some examples include; bone marrow transplants, and the treatment of several illnesses including cancers, auto-immune disease, cardiovascular disease, immunodeficiency disorders, and neuro-degenerative diseases.
Adult stem cells also are far more controllable than their embryonic counterparts. This means that scientists can control what type of tissue it can turn into for treatment. Scientists can find these cells in almost every major organ now. This means that they can extract stem cells from your heart, or other major organs, and can coax them to mature into several different cell types. This process of extraction is almost as easy as removing a unit of blood according to Dr. Healy.
Another major advantage of adult stem cells, is that there is no chance of rejection. Doctors are able to extract stem cells from various areas of the human body, including olfactory cells from the mucous lining of the nose. They can be obtained without harm to the patient, and with some slight chemical alterations to the cell in the laboratory, they can be used to treat almost any tissue in the human body, with no chance of rejection. This eliminates the need for the immuno-supprsive drugs that would otherwise be needed for embryonic cells.
One of the most recent major success stories of adult stem cells was the case of Claudia Castillo, a woman from columbia whose trachea had collapsed from tuberculosis. Researches from the university of Padua, and the university of Bristol removed a small portion of a trachea donor, and stripped it of the foreign cells, essentially leaving it a hollow section of cartilage. They then took stem cells from Ms. Castillo, and "seeded" the trachea. Over a period of just four days, they were able to grow a new trachea for her that they then transplanted into her. She was not given immuno-suppresive drugs, because there was no concern of rejection. When she was interview four months later, she was alive and healthy with no complications.
Now, to close the arguments on stem cell research, I believe that science has shown researches where to look for cures for the diseases that afflict humanity. This path that science is leading is also the ethical path; it will not require the destruction or harvesting of human embryos to accomplish this task. In light of my research, I believe that the Federal government should pursue funding of adult stem cell research with vigorous support.
Sources; stemcellresearch.org, Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete
March 04, 2009 11:52 AM ET | Bernadine Healy, M.D.,
Embryonic Research Driven by Greed, not Science
(Original title: “The Great Stem-Cell-Research Scam)
By Michael Fumento
New York Post, July 15, 2009
Copyright 2009 The Independent Journalism Project
Wikipedia.org ^ Rose, David (19 November 2008). "Claudia Castillo gets windpipe tailor-made from her own stem cells". The Times. The Times Newspapers Ltd. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5183686.ece. Retrieved 20 November 2008.
Works cited for Sum/resp essay
Works Cited: Obama and the Bureacratization of health care, Sarah Palin. Wall street journal, September 8, 2009 opinion section.
http:///online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Copyright ©2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Letter to Majority leader Steny Hoyer, from Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of Congressional budget office. July 25, 2009
http://thehealthcarevalueblog.com/2009/07/25/cbo-releases-analysis-of-independent-medicare-advisory-council-imac-act-of-2009/
http:///online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Copyright ©2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Letter to Majority leader Steny Hoyer, from Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of Congressional budget office. July 25, 2009
http://thehealthcarevalueblog.com/2009/07/25/cbo-releases-analysis-of-independent-medicare-advisory-council-imac-act-of-2009/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
