Response to Nick Lund's Ethics and Medicine Post

In Nick Lund's, Ethics and Medicine, post he disscusses the contreversial issue of stem cell research. Stem cell research has been a hot topic for the past several years. Nick Lund believes that stem cell research is a good idea and should advance in the future and I'd have to say that I agree with him. Many people argue that the creation, usage, and killing of human embryos to create stem cells is ethically wrong. I would have to disagree with this because with stem cell research we will be able to help and save many people suffering from cancer and other diseases and scientists are trying to rid them of this disease.

After reading the article, Stem Cell Research-pros and cons, I would have to say that the pros had a more compelling arguement for why stem cell research should be allow. In the article the pros of stem cell research is the hope to someday have the ability to cure diseases that wreck the lives of million of people such as Alzheizmers, Parkinson's disease, blood disorders, and others. Nick Lund believed this argument was more compelling than the con arguement and I would have to agree with this. In the end, I would have to agree with Nick Lund in saying that stem cell reseach should be allowed in order for advances in our medical world.

Ethics and Medicine

There are several topics in our world today where ethics and medicine conflict. One of the biggest conflicts that is up for debate is whether animal testing should be allowed or not. Many people believe that humans should not be able to test on animals because it is ethically and morally wrong. When animals are tested on they have sever side effects and have life long trama. In the end most of them end up dying due to being tested on. For example the joint disease osteoarthritis, people bring in healthy animals and inflict the healthy animals with the disease by dislocation their joints and injecting them with a dangerous liquid, which most of the time kills these animals. Some argue believe animal testing is acceptable because with the results of these testings it could benefit humans and save human lives. They believe that human lives are more important than the lives of innocent animals. I heard about this topic from a friend who did a persuasive paper on animal testing and why it should not be allowed.

I found an article that showed the pros and cons of why animal experitation should or should not be allowed. The article which can be found at Animal Experimentation tells both side of the argument. I think the cons have the best argument because I feel that animals have rights just like humans. I feel it is unacceptable to harm and kill animals only for the benefit of humans. Although animals cannot speak they have feelings and have the right to be treated as beings of value in themselves, not as the means to human ends. In the end I do not think animals should be able to be tested on for the benefit of humans.

Response to Nick Lunds Organs for Sale

After reading Nick Lunds blog, Organs for Sale, which is about whether people should be able to sell their organs or not, I would have to say that I agree with him. Nick Lund makes several good point of why people should be able to sell their own organs. He makes a good point when he says that it is their own body and they can do whatever they would like with it. I also believe that a person should have full right to sell it if it could save someone else's life. Someones organs belong to them and countries should allow them to sell their organs to help themselves out or even their family as well as helping another person with giving them the gift of life. Even though some may argue that it is morally wrong and poor people are only doing it for money, I think saving a life is more important to the ethics behind it.

Just like Nick Lund, my opinion on this subject did not change after reading the article, Sell Organs to Save Lives, by Martin Wilkinson. The article talks about how people would sell their organs because they have no choice and need money, which many people find to be a problem. Along with Nick Lund, I do not think this is a problem because people have a choice to do what ever they want with their bodies without a government telling them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Technorati Search (Paul Yonga)

After reaching for a blog about sports nutrition i finally found one that seemed interesting and well put together. The author of the blog is Ben Greenfield and the blog is Get Fit in 30 Minutes or Less. Ben Greenfield has been blogging for a couple years now and posts around one or two blogs a week. He does not use hyperlinks that often but when he does it is usually to other videos or audio of himself or they are links on how to lose weight and stay healthy which is what he writes about in his blogs. Ben Greenfield uses a lot of video and picture content in his blog posts. He also has links to other videos that can be found on youtube or even itunes.

I found another blog by Ben Greenfield that is specifically related to my informational paper called How to Truly Know if You Are Recovering From Workouts. This blog was written on October 7th, 2010 and it came from Ben Greenfields blog called Ben Greenfields Fitness. In my information paper I talked about what things athletes should do to make sure they are letting their bodies recover enough so they can preform at their peak day after day. Ben Greenfield talks about the same basic concept, only in his blog he goes more in depth and talks about how your heart rate plays a part in determining if you are doing enough and the biology of things. We talked about many of the same things but I think Ben Greenfield went a little more scientific in his blog than I did in my paper.