Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Group 1 Class Discussion: Chapter 4

After the Daily Quiz and discussing the Chapter as a class, our group began discussing the issue of organ harvesting after death and what should be done.  Kat had no problem with it, and soon after we transitioned into the issue of cadavers being used. No one had an issue with it or thought it was morally wrong as long as the person opted in. Meredith began a discussion on organ donors by stating that her family advised against being one, but she still supported the prospect. Overall, we all think that once someone has died, they will have no further use for their body, so there's not much of a problem donating it to a valuable purpose.

Next, we transitioned into a discussion on the topic of "medical paternalism", and the notion that doctors automatically jump to throwing prescriptions at patients. We all discussed the prospect of conditions and afflictions being "invented" by physicians, and Evan brought up the point that parents nowadays are stunting their children's creativities by prescribing them medication for perceived afflictions. Finally, we discussed the issue of physicians not spending enough time on patients and the potential ramifications.


  1. Before I post for the next reading, why don't we all take the time to include our group name and midterm project suggestions with this one? I talk way too much as it is, so I would much rather get you guys' input first :P

  2. FQ- What are the four R's used in international legislation pertaining to animal rights in research? (pg 123)
    Respect, reduction, refinement, and replacement

    FQ-What is World Health Organization's '10/90 Gap' referring to? (pg 133)
    Less than 10% of the funds spent on health research is devoted to the health problems which account for 90% of global disease.

    DQ- I would like our group to discuss the rights of animals pertaining to research that could greatly benefit humans.

    Here is a link about the 5 most common poverty-associated diseases and the 10/90 Gap. http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/submissions/InternationalPolicyNetwork.pdf

  3. As for your comment, Kat, I am not very creative with names, so I will let someone else take a stab at that one!

    Concerning mid-term projects, I know that our discussions on gender issues and organ donation/cadaver use have both been extensive, if that provides any indication of our interests!

  4. (FQ) Name two of the four areas of research discussed in the book.
    Clinical trials, medical research with animals, genetic research, and epidemiological research.

    (FQ) What decree states that consent must be gained in all experimentation with human beings?
    The Nuremberg Code

    (FQ) What method do scientists use when carrying out epidemiological research?
    Looking for associations between large banks of data gathered over extended periods of time.

    (DQ) I'd like to see what everyone thinks about experimentation with animals for medical research.

    Below is a link to an article by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics about animal research:

    As for Mid Term discussions: I agree with Meredith. Our talks on those days were very fruitful, so I think it's an area that we'd all like to research more into.

  5. (FQ) What is one of the basic requirements discussed that are common for all regulations regarding human research?
    Answ" Protection of participant, independent ethical review, scientific validity, fully informed and voluntary consent, and acceptable risks and benefits.
    link: http://www.bioethics.net/2014/01/should-those-selling-natural-cures-and-supplements-get-a-free-ride-when-it-comes-to-coi/\

    1. Philosophical Question:
      If data is collected in an unethical way, but is applicable in future research should it be used?

  6. FQ- What area of research emphasizes the four Rs, respect, reduction, refinement and replacement?
    Animal Rights
    DQ- While many individuals believe research with experimentation of animals could be very beneficial to the medical field, would they uphold the same beliefs if it was their beloved pet who was due to be tested? People are adamant about "coming into this world and leaving this world the same," although their bodies are going to disintegrate eventually anyways but that's a different matter. How would these people who are opposed to being an organ doner feel if their child needed a Kidney,? Would they remain loyal to their view that God made us this way and accept the fact, moving along letting their child suffer; or would they look for another kidney from an organ doner, a concept they don't support? Doctors could make many medical advances using animal research and testing. Vets and other animal activists have strong compassion for animals, and work to prevent the potential harm and abuse of them. This could initially stop the discovery of vital cures. As people though, shouldn't they want the best for human kind? Yet in their profession it is their job, duty, and responsibility to look out for the well being of animals. Would the situation be looked at differently to them if they had to deal with a situation (hypothetical of course) where to save their parents or spouse they had to kill one of their client's pets? Everything is situational and circumstantial.

  7. Oh yeah during my little rant their I forgot to include my input on the project. I think gender roles, or organ donation would both be good topics. There is a plethora of information on both, and make different stances, philosophies, individuals have on them.