Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, April 28, 2017

Sydney Smith's Final Report Installment II: The Biophilia Hypothesis

The Biophilia Hypothesis in 

Florence Williams' The Nature Fix

“Heaven is under our feet
as well as over our heads.”
—Henry David Thoreau

           In her search for “nature neurons,” Florence Williams found that there are two main theories for why nature benefits our brains: the biophilia hypothesis, which posits that we feel most at home in nature because we evolved there, and the cognitive hypothesis, the idea that being in nature improves our brain function. In this blog post, I’ll focus on the second hypothesis.
           Unlike biophilia, this theory does not begin with the proposition that humans have an evolutionary emotional kinship with all living things. Instead, the focus is on cognition: how does being in nature help us focus, problem-solve, and work with others? As perceiving beings, we are bombarded with so much sensory information that the bulk of the brain’s work is filtering out what’s relevant. This is problematic, as it draws the brain away from other tasks. Namely, the human brain has a processing speed of approximately 120 bits per second, and it takes half that just to listen to one person. Attention is thus a valuable resource, a resource which, by the cognitive hypothesis, time spent in nature can help us replenish.

           The brain’s cognitive 
system consists of three main networks. There is the executive network, which does most of the filtering mentioned before. The spatial network calibrates our spatial awareness. The default network—responsible for our hopeful, insightful, easygoing side—kicks in when the executive network turns off. Therefore, a major cognitive hypothesis is that being in nature allows our executive system to take a break, thereby engaging the default network. In this way, we gain a sense of mental and emotional restoration.

           We have long known—at least since the time of the first peripatetic philosophers—that time spent peacefully outdoors can clear the mind. Indeed, figures such as Aristotle, Darwin, Tesla, and Einstein took nature walks to help them think, Regardless of whether we explain the goodness of nature through the biophilia hypothesis or the cognitive hypothesis, and regardless of whether the goodness is due to nature itself or to the urban worries we leave behind, the very recent and ongoing science shows that being outside benefits our health. With that in mind, we can rethink nature’s importance in optimizing human potential and happiness.
           Though, for nearly a decade, a greater percentage of the world population lives in urban areas than rural ones, little attention has been paid to the task of ensuring that urban areas are compatible with our psychological needs. Indeed, policymakers and civic leaders have an ethical responsibility to consider citizens’ need for nature into urban planning, policy decisions, and architectural design. We can also use the results of the nature neuron research to improve our daily lives too.

       Williams recommends following Tim Beatley’s nature pyramid. At the base daily, local engagement with nature that helps us “destress, find focus and lighten our mental fatigue.” The pyramid includes weekly park trips and monthly visits to more remote outdoors. At the very tip is a yearly vigorous extended wilderness excursions. However we can, we should prime our nature neurons, which poetically resemble trees, for our health!

"Throw a stone into the stream and 
the ripples that propagate themselves 
are the beautiful type of all influence.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson

Source: Williams, Florence. The Nature Fix: Why Nature Makes Us Happier, Healthier, 
and More Creative. New York: W.W. Norton &, Independent Since 1923, 2017. Print.

Word Count: 549

Comment on Tanner's post
Comment on Sophie's post:  

First Installment

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Blogpost 2: The Soul of a Doctor

Here is a link to my first blogpost, where I discuss the first two aspects of patient care (as discussed in the Soul of a Doctor), communication and empathy. https://bioethjpo.blogspot.com/2017/04/blogpost-1-soul-of-doctor.html

In response to Dr. Oliver’s comment, I would like to say that I too was disturbed when I heard about the medical student excited to see the surgery. On one hand, the medical student should have a lot more empathy for this patient and see how they would feel if they had to go through the pain. On the other hand, I can see why the student might be a little excited to see a procedure, as I too have experienced that when I shadow doctors who get to perform certain procedures. I think that student could have 100% handled the situation better and exhibited more sympathy for the patient. First and foremost, I think it is a doctor’s duty to care for the patient. Not to care about the procedure and science behind the diagnosis of the patient.

For my second blogpost, I am going to talk more about the last two aspects of patient care: easing suffering and loss and finding a better way. In the story, “Limitations” we are introduced to a patient that became disabled after a serious accident. Although he was not paralyzed, the pain that the accident caused was so bad he could not walk or drive. He was suing to compensate for his medical bills and for emotional damages, but he admitted to the doctor that not even a million dollars would make him feel better. The only thing that gave the patient any joy in life was his granddaughter. This made the doctor think about the repercussions of health care and that just because people were living longer, doesn’t mean they were living better. The doctor speaks on how it is their duty to take care of not only the physical health of their patients, but of their mental and emotional health as well. Another story within the easing suffering and loss category is “Imagine How You’d Feel”. This features a mother and father while they are fighting for their child’s life and, ultimately, how they grieved his death. The father acted aggressive and out of control and many of the medical students assumed he was drunk. The mother was more reserved and just wanted alone time with her son. I think this really illustrates how people grieve in different ways. Some people respond in anger, but others are more detached from the situation. The ethical question comes into this story when the mother wants to take a picture with her dead son while he was in her arms. Although the medical student was not comfortable with this, I think it is perfectly acceptable. I come from a family that this is relatively normal for. My mother took pictures at my grandmother and my aunt’s funeral and she keeps them on her phone. I know that it might be weird for other people, but I think that if a patient request a picture with her deceased son, you should not force your beliefs on them. If you are uncomfortable doing so, you could always ask around and see if someone else could take the picture for the patient.

The last aspect of patient care I am going to discuss is finding a better way. The first story is “A Murmur in the ICU” and this follows the medical students as they visit patients as a learning experience. At first the medical students are just interested in learning what they need to learn, but as they look around the room and see pictures of family, balloons, and teddy bears, they quickly realize that these people are just like them. It makes them think about how they would feel if there were a bunch of students crowding around, trying to find the heart murmur that is killing them. The attending physician noted how important it is to introduce yourself to the patient and talk to them, even if you think they cannot hear you. In the end, the medical student realized that as you get accustomed to the environment of the ICU, it just becomes a place where sick people are hooked up to machines. In “Rewiring”, we get a look into the mind of a physician and how it is rewired after practicing medicine. Every person you encounter becomes a potential patient. A homeless man becomes a “48 y.o. male with a history of smoking, emphysema, and dementia.” An elderly woman becomes a “85 y.o. female with history of congestive heart failure presenting with shortness of breath and bilateral edema.” I think that this mindset can both be good and bad. In one sense, this could be a good way of keeping your mind sharp and aware of your surroundings. In another sense, it could be a very pessimistic view on life in that you see what is wrong in everyone. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this, as well as any other case I have mentioned.

Here are two videos discussing the importance of empathy in health care. The first is from the Cleveland Clinic and the second is a TedTalk by Paul Rosen.

Link to my two comments:



Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Drug Dealer MD, Second Post

Over the past thousands of years, people have understood pain to serve at least two useful functions. Pain is a warning system which tells us what to avoid and what not. People also believe pain is an opportunity for spiritual growth: “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” “After darkness comes dawn,” etc. Today, modern American culture regards pain as anathema, and to be avoided at all cost. This new view of pain comes from the belief that pain can cause permanent neurological damage that lays the foundation for future pain. Dr. Lembke states in her book, “This new conception holds true for both mental and physical pain, and it has been a major contributor to the prescription drug epidemic.”[1] As for theories involving mental pain, these date the back the early 1900s. At least to Freud, whose idea was that the early childhood experiences can influence behavior in later life. Also, the idea that an experience in one’s past can have a lasting psychological and often unconscious effect on one’s behavior in the present. 

Now, the role of physical pain has also fallen into a similar transformation. 200 years ago, pain was considered a vital part of the healing process, especially during surgery to revitalize cardiovascular functioning and strengthen the immune response. By the mid-1850s, improved methods to treat pain were introduced, such as morphine and the hollow needle syringe used to administer this drug. This contributed to the changing views for treating pain. With an effective means of treating pain, more doctors began advocating for the use of opioid painkillers. By the 1950s, because of refined technology, opioids were able to be readily synthesized in the laboratory. Thus leading to very eager pharmaceutical companies whom couldn’t wait to sell the new products. Today, pain is considered an almost intolerable sensation for patients to bear. Doctors are expected not to simply lessen the pain, but to eliminate it altogether.

The pressure today, for doctors to treat pain, has become so overwhelming that doctors who leave pain untreated are not just demonstrating poor clinical skills; they are viewed as morally compromised. There is also the legal liability of malpractice doctors must consider. In regard to the views of physical pain causing potential future pain, pain researchers speculate that once the individual experiences pain, the brain can be sensitized for future pain created additional urgency to treat any pain immediately and completely. Our tolerance and threshold for pain are also much lower now than ever before. How much pain is too much pain for an individual to suffer? Because of the lower threshold we are now accustomed to, there is an increase in prescriptions and consumption of potentially addictive prescription drugs.

T-Rex added a great comment to my last post, “How did the medical community in general not realize the glaring consequences of having pharmaceuticals as a major for-profit market? Clearly, someone, somewhere in this food chain had to be aware that pushing all of these pills with a turbulence of misinformation had to be hurting the patients while lining the pockets of the pharma companies. Or perhaps this was such an institutionalized issue from the beginning that even if some doctors did realize what was going on that they couldn't fight it without risking their job and security…”

T-Rex…The medical community has been fed a series of false information about the addictive agents of opioids, such as Oxycontin. They have also been told that pain is something they should eliminate. The philosophy behind “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” has, over the years, been thrown out of the window. Now, we see pain as having no value. On top of this, as I mentioned in my presentation, patients receive surveys once they have been seen by any medical profession in a hospital. This survey asks patients if the physician did everything needed to eliminate their pain. If no, the doctor, as well as the hospital, will get flagged by the joint commission. If this happens too often, the joint commission will revoke the accreditation of the hospital. Thus putting tremendous amounts of pressure on doctors to not send those red flags to the joint commission. 

Truthfully, I do believe this is a very institutionalized issue. Purdue Pharma was responsible for the teaching material of opioids and was later found guilty of misbranding OxyContin, by misleading the risk of addiction and potential to be abused. I think because of this, as well as our current philosophy on pain, and the pressure hospitals place on doctors to eliminate pain are all contributing factors to this issue. 

[1]  Lembke, Ann. Drug Dealer, MD. 2016

Being Mortal Presention

So I did my report on "Being Mortal Medicine and what matters at the end by Atul Gawande."  We've been talking about being mortal and how we would like to share our last moments and memories with our family. This book was very easy to read and understand. The author examples when we are younger we really don't think about dying and as we get older it starts to understand and come to terms that it is a part of life.The Author did a good job comparing and contrasting how the younger and the older generation has differ from each other over time.
 First he compares a women name Alice to his grandfather. Alice was a 55 year old women when her husband died leaving her with two kids and a house. Once Alice kids got older they left her in the house alone to continue their lives. And to Alice that was ok. She took care of daily house including mowing the lawn and garden work. Gawande father  met Alice and didn't feel comfortable with her leaving alone.

Blog Post #1: Brave New World

In Brave New World, alphas are designed to be physically and mentally superior than other groups. Bernard Marx though does not posses physical prowess, a confident demeanor, or ability to strike up conversations as the other alphas do. This leads to him being relentlessly taunted by other alphas and eventually cast aside. Even in our non-fictional world, many individuals are ridiculed for deviating from a social standard. In as sense our current society is similar to the one in Brave New World. Deviants are treated as threats to social stability and freedom. They are dehumanized, and are not given equal treatment that they deserve. Those who try to challenge unrighteous laws or norms are subjected to bullying, insults, imprisonment, and even death.

Why is there retaliation against people who only want to be accepted? Fear of people who are different is especially prevalent today. In the U.S. immigrants and refugees are seen as a threat to American culture and will only serve as a burden. LGBT individuals are accused of trying to pervert America. The outrage against these groups may be attributed to the fear of losing power among majority groups. As minority groups increase in size, the majority's opinion holds less influence. There are two pathways from this point. Opinions and ideas from the different groups intermingle to produce a higher level of thought. This would be preferable as everyone benefits from this route, however it is not always the case. Often the majority will continue to cling on to their old ways, desiring the stability it produced in their lives.

Stability may be used as one excuse for retaliation against different people, however instability is another. When issues arise, someone or something needs to identified as the cause. Unfortunately this gives opportunity for false connections to be made. Deviants can be quickly made into scapegoats for one's struggles in life. When this happens, it becomes easy for struggling people to express hatred towards those who are different. This leads to movements that attempt to reclaim that stability by removing the deviants or discrediting them. Such actions will not "Make America Great Again".

Accepting change is not easy regardless of how liberal or conservative one's tendencies may be. Change presents a challenge where we have to reaccommodate ourselves to new scenarios and new people, it can be very tiresome. How do we overcome this challenge; through understanding. At first glance an individual from Russia and an individual from Brazil may look very different however they share similar desires. They both yearn to love and be loved, live healthy lives, and experience happiness. By understanding that we all share similar goals, it becomes easier to relate to someone who you initially saw as different.

In Brave New World there was only one thought and one opinion, and those who deviated from it were exiled. Our world doesn't have to be a brave new world. We should further promote diversity and foster an environment where groups can exchange their ideas, behaviors, and cultural practices. Doing so will create a constantly improving world where its best days are in the future.

Homo Deus: The Anthropocene Epoch

        Homo Deus covers so many topics that I was unable to fully discuss the points I wanted in the time allotted to me during the presentation. I mainly talked about the third and last part of the book called “Homo Sapiens Loses Control.” In this section, Harari explores the extent of the human condition and overlays that with the blessing or curse of technology. He discusses the idea of superhumans and the idea of artificial algorithms becoming sovereign over humans for our best interest. It essentially introduces the idea that humans will create their own downfall, that we will eventually directly or indirectly destroy ourselves. Our fatal flaw being that we couldn’t fulfill our status as the gods of our world.

        In order to fully appreciate where the future will take us, we must first understand where we’ve come from and what progress has brought us to where we are now. I would like to further address the progression of humans from being equal to our fellow organisms to the point at which we saw ourselves as more precious than all other life on earth. Harari’s first section of the book, called Homo Sapiens Conquers the World, discusses the time in history when humans became the first species to change the earth and what aspect of the humanity sets us apart, what “Human Spark,” as Harari calls it, makes us significant?

        In regards to other animals, humans have long since become the gods of this world. Most people are disturbed by this thought because they believe the idea of a “god” is reserved for beings that are supernatural. Harari, however, believes that it is because we as humans have not been particularly merciful gods. It is easy to get the impression that the earth is teeming with wildlife because we watch the Discovery Channel or National Geographic channel, but it more accurate to believe that our world is mainly populated by us and domesticated animals that serve our needs.  According to WWF Global, wildlife populations have been cut in half since 1970, despite the growing ecological awareness. There are more domesticated birds and beasts than their wild counterparts.
Scientists had divided the history of the planet, from creation to present, into periods, eras, and epochs. The official epoch we currently live in is the Holocene, though it is rightfully speculated that we should refer the last 70,000 years as the epoch of humanity, the Anthropocene. During these past several thousand years, humans have become the “single most important agent of change in the global ecology,” according to geographers Lewis and Maslin, authors of ‘Defining the Anthropocene.’ Never in the history of life on earth has a single species processed the power to alter the ecology of the biosphere single-handedly. Homo Sapiens stands right alongside devastating natural forces such as severe climate change, volcanic eruption, and cosmic interference when it comes to changing the world. Such a comparison makes it understandable why we humans have ascended to the level of gods. According to Harari, our impact on the planet already revivals that of ice ages and tectonic plate movements.

        However, while natural disasters and events drastically change the ecology of the places they affect, their influence varies from event to event. Humanity, however, has driven the planet to, for the first time, a single ecological unit. Humans have caused organisms on every continent to interact with each other (invasive species), despite geographical barriers.

        We have come from an archaic hunter-gatherer nature of being animalistic and equal to other animals with genetic predispositions and preferences, to beings who have become enlightened to the world and have transcended to a superior status, thanks to the rise of modern science and industry, the start of it all being the Agricultural Revolution. From there, Homo Sapiens has established itself as the dominant species on the planet. But what makes us so special? Why is it seemingly ethical to exploit the lives of other organisms for our own needs? In my second installment, I will be discussing human nature and its power and what mythical, spiritual, or scientific aspect of humanity separates us so much from all other forms of life.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

First Installment-Generosity by Richard Powers

Generosity by Richard Powers focuses on Thassadit Amzwar, a refugee from Algeria. Despite having to flee her home country due to organized bloodbath and losing her father to the war and her mother to cancer, Thassadit maintains a positive outlook on her past, present, and future. This euphoria can be seen throughout every thing she does. For example, she can bring alive a story about an elderly woman hoisting her walker up the Grand Staircase of the Cultural Center at the rate of one step a minute (pg. 55). Due to this, one of her classmates gives her the nickname, “Miss Generosity” (pg. 58). Another one of her classmates illustrates a picture of Thassa with the caption, "Its like she's glowing. Like she knows something. Makes me want to be a refugee (pg. 101)". 

But does Thassa actually know something that the other characters do not know? Does she know the key to being alive? Or is her deep-seated happiness a result of her molecular foundation? This question brings up the debate on whether it is one’s genetic makeup or their environment that determines the person they become. As account for happiness, Powers states, “From 50 to 80 percent of the variation in people’s average happiness may be accounted for by genes. People display an affective set point in infancy that does not change much over a lifetime (pg. 99).” 

If our happiness is so highly dependent on genes, could we possibly alter our genome to become our own versions of Thassa? Thomas Kurton, a genetic specialist in Generosity, has been researching the happiness gene to potentially sell to parents to create happy children. When Kurton discovers Thassa, he also discovers the genome sequence that could be the key to permanent happiness. Every parent wants their child to be happy, but would an alteration of their genome achieve this goal?

As for Thassa’s professor, Russell Stone, he is on the complete other spectrum of happiness than his euphoric student. When seeking the response of his brother to Thassa’s mood, Robert tells his sibling, “Lets face facts. We’re depressives. It’s in the Stone gene pool. It wouldn’t have hung around for so many generations if it weren’t essential (pg. 86)."  If happiness is an ideal state of mind, why has it not been selected on to be more common? Powers states, “Back on the savannah, stress kept us alive. Natural selection shaped us for productive discontent, with glimmers of heavenly mirage to keep us going (pg. 87)." Dr. Melanie Greenberg continues this topic on Psychology Today. Research found that individuals with some adversity reported better mental health and wellbeing than individuals with high and almost no adversity.

With this evidence, is one's happiness a result of nurture rather than nature? Despite Power's vivid description of Thassa, a 99% gene based happy individual, the evidence supports that both nurture and nature contribute to our overall wellbeing. After forty years of research, social scientist concluded that happiness is a result of genes, events, and values

With this being said, happiness is not as simple as a nucleotide sequence mutation. As The New York Times describes, "Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp, but which if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you."

Superintelligence Final Blog Post Part 1

          It's hard not to talk about superintelligence in a scary way. I know that at least as far back as I can remember, humans have been the smartest kind of life we know of. The idea of something brainier taking the stage fills us with dread because we know it might supplant us. Even if we manage to exist side by side, no one likes to feel inferior. We can say what we like about humans still having the upper hand when it comes to rich emotional experience, but that may not be true. After all, a good enough simulation is functionally the same as the real thing, and a computer's got the capacity to do everything better and faster . . . provided a good enough program and enough processing power.
                               credit https://xkcd.com/1263/
          Anyway, that idea about simulations becoming indistinguishable from reality? That's the thought behind the concept of mind crime. I talked a little bit about it in my presentation, but if you need a refresher the idea is this: a computer simulating suffering in a perfectly simulated human mind is the same as causing real suffering to a real human. And deleting that simulation is the same as murder. An artificial superintelligence would be able to simulate a lot of human minds, and test them in a lot of ways. When we talk about cloning or genetic engineering, we see plainly how the statement 'I was created for a specific purpose' can get ethically troubling, or even downright dystopian, real quick. It's harder to imagine that without a biological body, but it's no less real. Well, no less real in the hypothetical situation we're imagining right now in which it's actually happening. It hasn't happened yet or anything. Probably. I'm getting off track.
          Where was I? Right, what can we do to stop it? It's hard to say. There's no guarantee an artificial superintelligence would think in a way that's anything like a human mind. But if they have the capacity to understand us so completely as to create a passable facsimile of human consciousness, they likely have the means to grasp why it's wrong to hurt others. I would hope there is a logically reachable higher truth that says that, at least. Whether or not there's anything to compel them to follow through on that moral knowledge, some synthetic analogue for a conscience . . . that'll be up to the programmers and their skills.
          And I'd like to add: if an ASI does deduce it's better to be nice than cruel, we'll finally have admissible evidence from a higher power whose existence is definitive that that is indeed the case. So if that's what you need, I guess you'll have it. And we can stop being frightened of you. And if it turns out to be the other way around, we'll likely not be long for this universe anyway. So, you know. We have that to look forward to.
          Hmm, that sounds nihilistic. I meant the first thing. We can look forward to the confirmation of niceness. That's what I meant. I'm choosing to be optimistic!

Blog post 1 -- Ordinary Well

In Ordinarily Well by Dr. Peter Kramer, a practicing psychiatrist and Brown Medical School professor, lays out his support for the efficacy of antidepressants. Through a series of vignettes, the doctor seeks to address this main point: do antidepressants work? After Kramer’s close friend, Alan, had suffered from a stroke, Kramer recalled a medical study that examined stroke victims who received either Prozac or placebo to aid with their recovery. The patients who got Prozac recovered more arm and leg movement compared to the patients on placebo. Alan hadn’t been offered medication, so Kramer insisted he should bring this up to his treatment team. Antidepressants were added to Alan’s recovery plan, along with physical therapy, and he began to recover movement of his right leg within weeks. 

During this ordeal, Kramer had a “disturbing interchange with a neurologist involved in Alan’s care.” The neurologist opined the antidepressants were “little better than placebos,” and he cited a news article that declared medication was effective only for very severe depression.  Kramer read the news articles; in 2010 several news magazines ran articles that suggested “antidepressants may be little more effective than a sugar pill in most patients who take them.” Kramer, having worked with patients on antidepressants for over four decades, encountered the question of placebo regularly and recognized the growing mistrust of medication. 
In 1998, an essay titled “Listening to Prozac but Hearing Placebo” which referenced Kramer’s book, utilized a peculiar selection of data to contend that antidepressants were more ineffective than previously thought. Kramer considered the piece a provocation but he did not respond.  In 2011, he was approached to a write a piece for The New York Times to comment on the efficacy of Prozac, Zoloft, Lexapro, and other drugs, and adapt content when relevant news surfaced. Marcia Angell, a “formidable figure” who had served as provisional editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and was a stanch advocate of evidence-based medicine, penned a critical review of psychiatry. Drawing on a book that equalized antidepressants with placebos, Angell summarized her view as “psychotic drug are useless.. or worse than useless.” 
Kramer responded with an article in the Times debunking her argument and asserted antidepressants were as “beneficial as most treatments that doctors are content to use.” In a letter to the editor, Angell rehashed her claim and contended that anecdotes do not supplement controlled clinical trials. Kramer had used Alan’s progress to support his views and drew on a controlled study from The Lancet: Neurology. Kramer wondered, “had I not shown myself to be Angell’s colleague — like her, a doctor obsessed with scrupulous experiments?” It now seemed the Angell and Kramer were in a “boxing match” and Angell continued with her view point that doctors should not use anecdotal clinical experience because it could mislead them and advised instead to have faith in “in rigorous, randomized, double blind, controlled clinical trials, and that’s the only way we can get at the facts.” Kramer was agitated by the suggestion that psychiatrist ignorable valuable clinical trials. Like many doctors, he kept up-to-date on research results but he “read them in the context” of what he saw in daily work. 
Angell’s reply to Kramer’s essays clarified his task for him; he had to issues to undertake: answering the do-they-work question and elaborating on the thought process of doctors in the moment of decision making. I believe Kramer’s focus on the stories of the patients is vital; clinical tests are critical to establish medical integrity but to disregard the clinical observations of  a practicing psychiatrist, like Angell supports, is silly.

Mental Illness has a major effect on people's life whether it be a loved one, a friend, a teacher, or simple an acquaintance; however, the people most effected by the illness is the person who has this illness. These people often times have many confused thoughts about themselves but they might be also be confused by their place in society. 
As a whole the treatment of people with mental illness in society has improved beyond belief over the years. In the past people with severe mental illnesses were thought to be possessed and were shunned from society and shoved off into facilities. Now, with the elevation of technology most people can go about a daily life and no one can tell they have a mental illness. However, there are still things that most society may not even notice that can have a negative effect on someone with mental illness. Think about all the conversations that you have said or heard someone use a mental illness as an adjective to describe someone who probably does not suffer from the illness. What if someone who does suffer from an illness or that illness heard the statements. This person can now feel like what they suffer from is nothing but a joke and that people may view is as much less serious than it really is. This does not mean society is in the wrong, but maybe in a changing stage as I like to view it. We are more accepting of the disorders yet not sensitive to the disorders. We no longer view them as badly and judgmentally as before, but we do not give them as much consideration that they might deserve.  
Living with a mental illness can be a hard thing for people to grasp. There are plenty of videos over what it feels like to go through life with one, but These videos are not like actually feeling the weight of the illness for real. This is a very hard thing to associate with to because as a whole the feeling may be similar among everyone who suffers from some illness they will all have a different way of describing the feeling, These descriptions can cause misunderstandings. These misunderstandings can make it harder for someone to associate more with a person with a mental illness because it is only natural for humans to avoid what they do not understand. This is one of the major reasons I believe mental illness is becoming pretty much universally accepted by society and does not inhibit them in really getting jobs or things of that nature. They are more so inhibited by themselves in a way. While that may sound like blaming the victim in a way that is not the intent. What I mean is that the illness is causes doubts, insecurities, and other things that make it hard for a person o go out and live a normal wholesome life. 

Y'all might need these

Since I gave out handouts, here is my quiz and answers.

1. How much will it cost to get a clone of a dog? pg 5
2. What year was dolly the sheep cloned? pg 6
3. What are the four examples of bioengineering already on the horizon? pg 10
4. What did they say was "Viagra for the brain"? P 14
5. What does MicroSort do? pg 23
6. T/ F The more an athlete relies on drugs or genetic fixes, the less his performance represents his achievement. pg 26
7. What has happened to the size of football players over the last 30 years? pg 34
8. What happened to HW assigned to children ages 6-8 between the years of 1981 and 1997? pg 59
9. What is Eugenics? pg 63

1. $100,000
2. 1997
3. Muscle enhancement, memory enhancement, height enhancement, sex selection
4. “A drug that reversed age-related memory loss would be a bonanza for the pharmaceuticals industry”
5. Couples who want to choose the sex of their baby for family balancing
6. True
7. “Over the past thirty years, the size of football players in the NFL has drastically increased” in 1972 – 248lbs, in 2002 – 422lbs
8. The amount of homework assigned to children sex to eight years old has tripled

9. A movement of large ambition- to improve the genetic makeup of the human race.