I am a to be a sophomore at UC Berkeley majoring in Genetics and Plant Biology with pre-med ambitions.
I was hoping that each summer I could do volunteering work at my local hospital and over the school year volunteer at an autism center for kids. However, the people in both places have made it very clear that they will not allow us to touch the patients or gain any clinical experience.
I know that clinical experience is very important but I don't know where I can find any. One of my friends who attends UC Davis now says that he is able to work at the UC Davis medical center's ER room and actually take blood pressures and simple tests on the patients. Since UC Berkeley doesn't have a medical school, I really don't know where to look for to gain clinical experience since hospitals don't offer that.
Furthermore, as for Research works. I wanted to do some plant research with a professoer during my junior year. Since my research is not related to medicine. Is it still useful?
Clinical Work vs. Volunteering vs. Research for Medical School?
Most volunteer experience does not involve direct patient care. There are very few health care positions that don't require certification, so the admission committees aren't looking for hands-on volunteer experience. They do want to see that you've been exposed to the realities of the health care environment and have abandoned the Hollywood romanticized version of health care.
It appears that your interests lie in research medicine. The research oriented medical schools prefer to see research activities versus volunteer work. These admission committees want to see that you've been exposed to research methodologies and protocols, so your plant research would fit that bill nicely.
Good luck!
Monday, April 26, 2010
I need help with a topic for my ethics class research paper. I t has to an ethical issue in the medical feild.
do you have any suggestions?
I need help with a topic for my ethics class research paper. I t has to an ethical issue in the medical feild.
Ethical Behavior: Behavior conforming to generally accepted social norms concerning benificial and harmful action.
Looks at this website I hope it helps: Ethical Issues of Medical Records on the Internet (http://www.luc.edu/ethics/23260etc2/etc2...
Or this one: Ethics Articles of the Month (http://www.hospicecare.com/Ethics/monthl...
Reply:Here's a list of online books that might help you do the research once you choose a topic...
Reply:Face transplants.
Reply:The right to die vs being on a ventilator
or end stage disease and there isn't anything else the hospital can do, so they want to send you home or transfer you to another facitily....Not sure where to tell you to look for information on this one, but I know there has been some court battles with some Houston area hospitals and transferring of patients..Not sure which one though it has been a while.
Also you can use the Florida case to support the first one. The lady that was taking off life support by her husband against the wishes of her family...I believe Gov. Bush at the time tried to stop it. It has been several years ago, so I don't remember all the facts.
Good Luck
Reply:Research: Post-humanism. Then here is your topic: In a world where it will be possible to live until you're 300 should humans be allowed to reproduce? Or: In such a world, who should be allowed to live that long? According to Post-humanism, Medicine may one day - soon - be able to prolong life indefinitely. Should that be allowed?
medicine
I need help with a topic for my ethics class research paper. I t has to an ethical issue in the medical feild.
Ethical Behavior: Behavior conforming to generally accepted social norms concerning benificial and harmful action.
Looks at this website I hope it helps: Ethical Issues of Medical Records on the Internet (http://www.luc.edu/ethics/23260etc2/etc2...
Or this one: Ethics Articles of the Month (http://www.hospicecare.com/Ethics/monthl...
Reply:Here's a list of online books that might help you do the research once you choose a topic...
Reply:Face transplants.
Reply:The right to die vs being on a ventilator
or end stage disease and there isn't anything else the hospital can do, so they want to send you home or transfer you to another facitily....Not sure where to tell you to look for information on this one, but I know there has been some court battles with some Houston area hospitals and transferring of patients..Not sure which one though it has been a while.
Also you can use the Florida case to support the first one. The lady that was taking off life support by her husband against the wishes of her family...I believe Gov. Bush at the time tried to stop it. It has been several years ago, so I don't remember all the facts.
Good Luck
Reply:Research: Post-humanism. Then here is your topic: In a world where it will be possible to live until you're 300 should humans be allowed to reproduce? Or: In such a world, who should be allowed to live that long? According to Post-humanism, Medicine may one day - soon - be able to prolong life indefinitely. Should that be allowed?
medicine
Recent medical research has shown that marijuana may actually PREVENT lung cancer. Do you feel safer, now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Recent medical research has shown that marijuana may actually PREVENT lung cancer. Do you feel safer, now?
Not really
Reply:No, not so much.
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
Did you read this part?????
Smoking any substance can cause chronic irritation with chemicals that can cause mutations leading to cancer....Wake up.
Reply:for people who think the THC can be passed trhough the sperm and make kids retarded Im living proof thats untrue. I have a 136 IQ have a scholorship and my dads smoked weed everyday since way before i was born and I beleive that cuz whats the toxin that hurts your lungs in weed? There is none in ciggarretes theres tar and other toxins. stoners r winning the arguement about legalizing weed these days i think. Too bad we're all too lazy to go vote.
Reply:mary jane.here i come.
Reply:I know someone who never smoke cigarretes but did smoke weed and still got a huge tumor in his lung. so I don't think that is true. According to research I have read, smoking 1 maijuana joint is like smoking a whole pack of cigarettes. The effects of weed can be passed from the sperm to the egg and into the fetus causing health and learning problems.
But I am all for the medical uses. If it truely can help someone in dire pain. Go for it!
Reply:No- smoking is smoking and very irritating to the lungs. They are only meant to filter the air- not excessive pollutants.
Reply:Ha! I still don't like smoking anything, but I can't say I'm THAT surprised. Maybe someday the paranoia will die down and pot will be recognized as the beneficial medicinal (and hedonistic) herb that it is.
Reply:Breathing easier already :)
Reply:Safer than what? I don't smoke pot, so I didn't feel threatened in the first place.
Reply:You'd have to be high to believe that.
Reply:Absolutely not.
Somebody was smoking it in this building the other night. When I opened my door for a friend to leave the fumes hit me so bad that my sinus burned, my throat hurt, I started coughing, and had to cover my nose and mouth, and had to shut my door, but by that time it was too late, my head was now aching. I spent a miserable night with dry hacking cough, watery eyes, and runny nose. It was as if someone was burning garbage in the hallway. Don't try to tell me it was something else, because it happened twice before, and I was told by the caretaker who knew what it was.
Like someone else said, shortly before me, the research is BS!!
Reply:no
Reply:thats BS
Reply:I feel okay, I guess... wait... what was the question again?
Reply:CLINCAL TRIALS ARE BULLLLLLLSHIT.
(;
Reply:Huh that is funny all the research I have read says that it increase the chances, but then again..... I still don't this is a good idea.
Recent medical research has shown that marijuana may actually PREVENT lung cancer. Do you feel safer, now?
Not really
Reply:No, not so much.
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
Did you read this part?????
Smoking any substance can cause chronic irritation with chemicals that can cause mutations leading to cancer....Wake up.
Reply:for people who think the THC can be passed trhough the sperm and make kids retarded Im living proof thats untrue. I have a 136 IQ have a scholorship and my dads smoked weed everyday since way before i was born and I beleive that cuz whats the toxin that hurts your lungs in weed? There is none in ciggarretes theres tar and other toxins. stoners r winning the arguement about legalizing weed these days i think. Too bad we're all too lazy to go vote.
Reply:mary jane.here i come.
Reply:I know someone who never smoke cigarretes but did smoke weed and still got a huge tumor in his lung. so I don't think that is true. According to research I have read, smoking 1 maijuana joint is like smoking a whole pack of cigarettes. The effects of weed can be passed from the sperm to the egg and into the fetus causing health and learning problems.
But I am all for the medical uses. If it truely can help someone in dire pain. Go for it!
Reply:No- smoking is smoking and very irritating to the lungs. They are only meant to filter the air- not excessive pollutants.
Reply:Ha! I still don't like smoking anything, but I can't say I'm THAT surprised. Maybe someday the paranoia will die down and pot will be recognized as the beneficial medicinal (and hedonistic) herb that it is.
Reply:Breathing easier already :)
Reply:Safer than what? I don't smoke pot, so I didn't feel threatened in the first place.
Reply:You'd have to be high to believe that.
Reply:Absolutely not.
Somebody was smoking it in this building the other night. When I opened my door for a friend to leave the fumes hit me so bad that my sinus burned, my throat hurt, I started coughing, and had to cover my nose and mouth, and had to shut my door, but by that time it was too late, my head was now aching. I spent a miserable night with dry hacking cough, watery eyes, and runny nose. It was as if someone was burning garbage in the hallway. Don't try to tell me it was something else, because it happened twice before, and I was told by the caretaker who knew what it was.
Like someone else said, shortly before me, the research is BS!!
Reply:no
Reply:thats BS
Reply:I feel okay, I guess... wait... what was the question again?
Reply:CLINCAL TRIALS ARE BULLLLLLLSHIT.
(;
Reply:Huh that is funny all the research I have read says that it increase the chances, but then again..... I still don't this is a good idea.
Do you know what vetoing stem cell research will mean?
Since other countries are working on this medical technology,
it means the wealthy will be able to fly off to a foreign country
for treatment, while the poor will die off.
Is this just another plan to get rid of the poor, esp, the sick poor?
Yes, I did see a program where a young boy was cured of
leukemia with stem cells. Progress is being made.
I think this will throw the U.S., lightyears behind other countries
with medical research. Very sad.
Do you know what vetoing stem cell research will mean?
I answered with this earlier, but I shall do it again. Tony Snow, Whitehouse Press Secretary, said that GW Bush does not support murder. He then followed it up by saying stem cell research is not illegal, that private companies can continue to do the research, it will just not be funded by the federal government. Here, I shall try to argue like the Rapture Right: Stem cell research is murder. Stem cell research is not illegal. Private companies can murder because it is not illegal.
The real science, however, say this; It all begins with the five to seven days after conception. This is the time period during which embryonic stem cells can be harvested. Most on the right believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So many believe that to kill the cytoblast (the term for the embryo at this particular stage) is amoral and should not be done. i.e. It is murder.
When a couple decides they no longer want any more invitro procedures done, the companies that do the procedures are under the obligation to destroy the remaining supply of cytoblasts, the very same cytoblasts that could otherwise be used for stem cell research.
The Rapture Right's logic on this subject then leads me to believe that it is better to throw life in a garbage can than to use it for research and possible cures to diseases.
The embryos are frozen, they have 150 cells, they aren't even embryos, they are cytoblasts. They already exist and the Rapture Right would rather put them in the trash than in a laboratory.
Reply:its natural selection. its sad that some must die of accidents or diseases but its nature's way of controlling populations. america thinks its evil to use stem cells cause they used to be living things. but can you remember when you weren't even born. they dont have a mind so its not that evil to do so. if only we weren't so sentimental.....
Reply:Nothing. It is the federal subsidy that is in play, something the 42 President said was not right.
Reply:First of all, most of you don't know what you are talking about.
There is NO BAN on stem cell research in America. All this bill would have done is allow federal dollars to be spent in the area.
And we do actually spend federal money on this, but it is limited to a batch of stem cells that was already in existence. In fact Bush actually increased the federal funding on research on those cells to more then Clinton did.
There is plenty of private money being spent on this now, and break throughs will continue to happen. In fact you libs out there should side with Bush on this from your twisted ways of looking at things, it would look like this.
Federal government spends tax dollars, better used for increased entitlement spending, on medical research, will will make BIG medical companies lots of money, on a new technology, that like all new technologies will be expensive and then only help the rich. I know you are to busy being angry at Bush to even think, straight.
Typical of you lib's though, private money, and the people of this country are completely worthless, only by the government getting involved can anything be solved. God its a wonder Henry Ford was able to make cars without a federal grant. How ever did the Wright brothers invent the plane without government money?!?
You are pathetic, just like those losers sitting in New Orleans waiting for the government to help them, rather then helping themselves.
Reply:Your information is a bit cock-eyed. There is stem-cell research in the states it is just privately funded because the current administration does not support it.
The U.S. is already years behind some other countries because of the greed of medical companies and insurance providers!
If you feel strongly about these issues get on your congressmans back and tell him what you want done!!
It's OUR country - WE elect the people that run it - if you don't like how it's being done GET INVOLVED!!!
Reply:so put wealth before the welfare of innocents, where it neither works or profits the community?
Reply:I have yet to see one cure from stem cell research. Lots of promises, but no real solutions. It's just another huge money bag for politicians.
Reply:no
Reply:I think that until stem cell research will have a better percentage of not endangering your unborn child, then yes, it should be vetoed.
Note: I am sorry to whomever said that it was not evil. It is because you are endangering a living human being, it doesn't matter, at the first second that the child is conceived, it is a living human being! It is called murder until they can use it and no endanger the child!
Reply:Keeping me in a wheelchair longer.
Reply:Its not the essence of stem cells that is wrong. It's what will become of them if the wrong people use the technology. Its not a plan to get rid of the poor because the rich are in control here and can get doctors and such brought to them. It will set the U.S. back, but soon we will find something else to better spend our funds on. We just don't know of it yet.
Reply:It will show you, once again, how stupid Bush is!! I think he needs a few!!
Reply:It's very sad when people choose to not be informed of the facts on this issue.
Reply:If cures are developed that USE stem cells from embryos in other countries, then maybe this will happen. A few points to ponder:
I think the veto will block federal funds being used for this type of research, but not necessarily block the research itself. Since it is such a highly-charged moral and ethical issue, it does make a lot of sense that the federal government wouldn't force it's citizens to pay for something that most feel is morally wrong. However, polls show that the majority of Americans (60% +) think that stem cell research should be conducted. If the federal government truly represents the People, then they should follow this instead of following their own personal agendas. They are sent to WA DC to speak on the behalf of their constituents, not to ignore their constituents and press for their personal opinions to become law.
Stem cells can be taken from sources other than embryos. I believe the child to whom you refer was cured of leukemia with stem cells taken from the umbilical cord of his newborn sibling. This opened of a new pandoras box: Is it ethical or "right" to have a child for the purpose of providing cells to save your other child? Silly, really, since both kids would be loved and cared for. Every day families who thought they were done having kids find one reason or another to have another baby. Why not do so to help another of their children?
The embryos in question were created during the process of IVF by families wishing to have children who were unable to do so without a little help. They are the "extras" that ended up not being used because earlier implations of IVF embroys worked for that family. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of these embryos will simply be destroyed with other "medical waste". Thus, some proponents of using them are saying that the argument of "respecting life" makes more sense when you argue FOR using these embryos for research that could possibly save others' lives rather than basically chucking them in the trash.
To say that allowing the use of these embryos would lead to more abortions or breeding embryos for research is a red herring. If that is really what people fear, then legislation can be written that specifies that embyos leftover from IVF can be used for research, but that embryos cannot be grown in test tube breeding grounds for the purpose of research.
I, too, have some moral and ethical reservations about this, but need to study the subject more before coming to a conclusion about my own personal position. I suspect that many people who have taken positions--for or against--on the subject have done so prematurely and that they really need to study the topic for themselves instead of just listening to what others say about it and accepting what may be opinions based on erroneous information as fact.
Reply:Progress is being made in study, not practice. It may turn out that stem cells hold the cures to certain diseases, or they may have been a red herring the whole time. Sadly, both sides of this argument have been grossly exaggerated. Conservatives are crying out that hospitals will begin harvesting baby spines and paying women to abort pregnancies- nonsense. Liberals claim that Stem Cells hold the cure to world hunger, aids, cancer, and the common cold all at once- also nonsense. It would be very nice if we could all look at this rationally, because it isn't really that big of a deal yet, and may never be.
Reply:How many poor will be able to aford it? Come on give me a break. That is such a weak argument. The poor may die of as a result of Bill Gates and his buddy donating all that cash, most of it going towards global population control. Isn't it usually poor women having abortions, and not the rich? Come on, think about it a minute.
Will stem cell research really benefit the poor? I dont think so. I think the rich will always have the money to buy what the poor cannot afford.
Reply:It'll set the US back a hundred yrs. Just like when our schools don't stress math %26amp; sciences in education. And kids graduate from highschool not knowing how to read. And when our educational system stops teaching at 12th grade.
Reply:I have never heard of stem cells taken from babies curing anything. Adult stem cells have proven to be effective, and I think that we should do more research with them instead of murdering babies.
Reply:The poor better get wealthy then.
Reply:OK...even if we did the big stem cell break through here...the poor would still not get it. It would be at best a high risk, experimental medical procedure. And poor folks can't afford that kind of stuff. So a poor person with a funky whatever will still die from it as they have no money and can't pay for the stem cells anyway.
In any case...stem cell may not real end up as the big cure for everything, anyway...
it means the wealthy will be able to fly off to a foreign country
for treatment, while the poor will die off.
Is this just another plan to get rid of the poor, esp, the sick poor?
Yes, I did see a program where a young boy was cured of
leukemia with stem cells. Progress is being made.
I think this will throw the U.S., lightyears behind other countries
with medical research. Very sad.
Do you know what vetoing stem cell research will mean?
I answered with this earlier, but I shall do it again. Tony Snow, Whitehouse Press Secretary, said that GW Bush does not support murder. He then followed it up by saying stem cell research is not illegal, that private companies can continue to do the research, it will just not be funded by the federal government. Here, I shall try to argue like the Rapture Right: Stem cell research is murder. Stem cell research is not illegal. Private companies can murder because it is not illegal.
The real science, however, say this; It all begins with the five to seven days after conception. This is the time period during which embryonic stem cells can be harvested. Most on the right believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So many believe that to kill the cytoblast (the term for the embryo at this particular stage) is amoral and should not be done. i.e. It is murder.
When a couple decides they no longer want any more invitro procedures done, the companies that do the procedures are under the obligation to destroy the remaining supply of cytoblasts, the very same cytoblasts that could otherwise be used for stem cell research.
The Rapture Right's logic on this subject then leads me to believe that it is better to throw life in a garbage can than to use it for research and possible cures to diseases.
The embryos are frozen, they have 150 cells, they aren't even embryos, they are cytoblasts. They already exist and the Rapture Right would rather put them in the trash than in a laboratory.
Reply:its natural selection. its sad that some must die of accidents or diseases but its nature's way of controlling populations. america thinks its evil to use stem cells cause they used to be living things. but can you remember when you weren't even born. they dont have a mind so its not that evil to do so. if only we weren't so sentimental.....
Reply:Nothing. It is the federal subsidy that is in play, something the 42 President said was not right.
Reply:First of all, most of you don't know what you are talking about.
There is NO BAN on stem cell research in America. All this bill would have done is allow federal dollars to be spent in the area.
And we do actually spend federal money on this, but it is limited to a batch of stem cells that was already in existence. In fact Bush actually increased the federal funding on research on those cells to more then Clinton did.
There is plenty of private money being spent on this now, and break throughs will continue to happen. In fact you libs out there should side with Bush on this from your twisted ways of looking at things, it would look like this.
Federal government spends tax dollars, better used for increased entitlement spending, on medical research, will will make BIG medical companies lots of money, on a new technology, that like all new technologies will be expensive and then only help the rich. I know you are to busy being angry at Bush to even think, straight.
Typical of you lib's though, private money, and the people of this country are completely worthless, only by the government getting involved can anything be solved. God its a wonder Henry Ford was able to make cars without a federal grant. How ever did the Wright brothers invent the plane without government money?!?
You are pathetic, just like those losers sitting in New Orleans waiting for the government to help them, rather then helping themselves.
Reply:Your information is a bit cock-eyed. There is stem-cell research in the states it is just privately funded because the current administration does not support it.
The U.S. is already years behind some other countries because of the greed of medical companies and insurance providers!
If you feel strongly about these issues get on your congressmans back and tell him what you want done!!
It's OUR country - WE elect the people that run it - if you don't like how it's being done GET INVOLVED!!!
Reply:so put wealth before the welfare of innocents, where it neither works or profits the community?
Reply:I have yet to see one cure from stem cell research. Lots of promises, but no real solutions. It's just another huge money bag for politicians.
Reply:no
Reply:I think that until stem cell research will have a better percentage of not endangering your unborn child, then yes, it should be vetoed.
Note: I am sorry to whomever said that it was not evil. It is because you are endangering a living human being, it doesn't matter, at the first second that the child is conceived, it is a living human being! It is called murder until they can use it and no endanger the child!
Reply:Keeping me in a wheelchair longer.
Reply:Its not the essence of stem cells that is wrong. It's what will become of them if the wrong people use the technology. Its not a plan to get rid of the poor because the rich are in control here and can get doctors and such brought to them. It will set the U.S. back, but soon we will find something else to better spend our funds on. We just don't know of it yet.
Reply:It will show you, once again, how stupid Bush is!! I think he needs a few!!
Reply:It's very sad when people choose to not be informed of the facts on this issue.
Reply:If cures are developed that USE stem cells from embryos in other countries, then maybe this will happen. A few points to ponder:
I think the veto will block federal funds being used for this type of research, but not necessarily block the research itself. Since it is such a highly-charged moral and ethical issue, it does make a lot of sense that the federal government wouldn't force it's citizens to pay for something that most feel is morally wrong. However, polls show that the majority of Americans (60% +) think that stem cell research should be conducted. If the federal government truly represents the People, then they should follow this instead of following their own personal agendas. They are sent to WA DC to speak on the behalf of their constituents, not to ignore their constituents and press for their personal opinions to become law.
Stem cells can be taken from sources other than embryos. I believe the child to whom you refer was cured of leukemia with stem cells taken from the umbilical cord of his newborn sibling. This opened of a new pandoras box: Is it ethical or "right" to have a child for the purpose of providing cells to save your other child? Silly, really, since both kids would be loved and cared for. Every day families who thought they were done having kids find one reason or another to have another baby. Why not do so to help another of their children?
The embryos in question were created during the process of IVF by families wishing to have children who were unable to do so without a little help. They are the "extras" that ended up not being used because earlier implations of IVF embroys worked for that family. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of these embryos will simply be destroyed with other "medical waste". Thus, some proponents of using them are saying that the argument of "respecting life" makes more sense when you argue FOR using these embryos for research that could possibly save others' lives rather than basically chucking them in the trash.
To say that allowing the use of these embryos would lead to more abortions or breeding embryos for research is a red herring. If that is really what people fear, then legislation can be written that specifies that embyos leftover from IVF can be used for research, but that embryos cannot be grown in test tube breeding grounds for the purpose of research.
I, too, have some moral and ethical reservations about this, but need to study the subject more before coming to a conclusion about my own personal position. I suspect that many people who have taken positions--for or against--on the subject have done so prematurely and that they really need to study the topic for themselves instead of just listening to what others say about it and accepting what may be opinions based on erroneous information as fact.
Reply:Progress is being made in study, not practice. It may turn out that stem cells hold the cures to certain diseases, or they may have been a red herring the whole time. Sadly, both sides of this argument have been grossly exaggerated. Conservatives are crying out that hospitals will begin harvesting baby spines and paying women to abort pregnancies- nonsense. Liberals claim that Stem Cells hold the cure to world hunger, aids, cancer, and the common cold all at once- also nonsense. It would be very nice if we could all look at this rationally, because it isn't really that big of a deal yet, and may never be.
Reply:How many poor will be able to aford it? Come on give me a break. That is such a weak argument. The poor may die of as a result of Bill Gates and his buddy donating all that cash, most of it going towards global population control. Isn't it usually poor women having abortions, and not the rich? Come on, think about it a minute.
Will stem cell research really benefit the poor? I dont think so. I think the rich will always have the money to buy what the poor cannot afford.
Reply:It'll set the US back a hundred yrs. Just like when our schools don't stress math %26amp; sciences in education. And kids graduate from highschool not knowing how to read. And when our educational system stops teaching at 12th grade.
Reply:I have never heard of stem cells taken from babies curing anything. Adult stem cells have proven to be effective, and I think that we should do more research with them instead of murdering babies.
Reply:The poor better get wealthy then.
Reply:OK...even if we did the big stem cell break through here...the poor would still not get it. It would be at best a high risk, experimental medical procedure. And poor folks can't afford that kind of stuff. So a poor person with a funky whatever will still die from it as they have no money and can't pay for the stem cells anyway.
In any case...stem cell may not real end up as the big cure for everything, anyway...
Wouldn't you support federal funding for a medical research on how to cure "gay-ness"?
No.
It's a chosen behavior. They choose to behave in that manner. They have control over what they do or do not do. Excuses change nothing and there is nothing to justify. Why study it?
Better to study how to build a better bomb shelter...we may need it sooner than your "cure".
If you disagree, and Im sure some people do, then explain why people who pride themselves on choice are suddenly helpless when it comes to this particular issue? The average person is capable of a wide array of emotions, each triggered by learned behaviors, so I am not denying they may "feel" something, however the problem is in the act, not the feeling...besides, sex is for procreation, not recreation.
.
Wouldn't you support federal funding for a medical research on how to cure "gay-ness"?
A republican congress would never approve something like that because it runs counter to their argument that homosexuality is a choice. If it "needs to be cured" then it's not a choice, is it?
The democrats don't have a hang up about gay people and neither do I so my answer to your question would be no.
Reply:then we can have higher abortion rates, more abandoned children,
and more people to go into more pointless wars of the future. fantastic.
Reply:Nah, there are more important diseases to fix.
Besides, if they did that, who would be the good hairstylists?
Reply:No, but I would support one that cures hate and ignorance.
Reply:we dont want to be cured!
Reply:Excuse me, but that's an idiotic question. Being gay is not a disease; not even a contagious disease. So, relax.
Reply:YES
I would be in favor of genetic research and testing.
Reply:No, it would be wasted. You can't "cure" homosexuality any more than you can "cure" someone's hair color. I'd spend the money on schools to better educate people so they wouldn't ask questions like this.
Reply:Sure, why not? But there are more pressing issues than that.
Reply:yes i would , it is a disease that they admit they are born with that needs a cure
Reply:No. We need never to get rid of fashion designers
Reply:I wouldn't support federal funding for medical research on how to cure gay-ness just so that these queers can find out that homosexuality isn't a genetic defect. Why spend money to cure a " disease" that isn't a disease but an excuse to some perverts sick habits.
Reply:The same placebo could be administered to cure your bigotry.
Reply:lol
It's a chosen behavior. They choose to behave in that manner. They have control over what they do or do not do. Excuses change nothing and there is nothing to justify. Why study it?
Better to study how to build a better bomb shelter...we may need it sooner than your "cure".
If you disagree, and Im sure some people do, then explain why people who pride themselves on choice are suddenly helpless when it comes to this particular issue? The average person is capable of a wide array of emotions, each triggered by learned behaviors, so I am not denying they may "feel" something, however the problem is in the act, not the feeling...besides, sex is for procreation, not recreation.
.
Wouldn't you support federal funding for a medical research on how to cure "gay-ness"?
A republican congress would never approve something like that because it runs counter to their argument that homosexuality is a choice. If it "needs to be cured" then it's not a choice, is it?
The democrats don't have a hang up about gay people and neither do I so my answer to your question would be no.
Reply:then we can have higher abortion rates, more abandoned children,
and more people to go into more pointless wars of the future. fantastic.
Reply:Nah, there are more important diseases to fix.
Besides, if they did that, who would be the good hairstylists?
Reply:No, but I would support one that cures hate and ignorance.
Reply:we dont want to be cured!
Reply:Excuse me, but that's an idiotic question. Being gay is not a disease; not even a contagious disease. So, relax.
Reply:YES
I would be in favor of genetic research and testing.
Reply:No, it would be wasted. You can't "cure" homosexuality any more than you can "cure" someone's hair color. I'd spend the money on schools to better educate people so they wouldn't ask questions like this.
Reply:Sure, why not? But there are more pressing issues than that.
Reply:yes i would , it is a disease that they admit they are born with that needs a cure
Reply:No. We need never to get rid of fashion designers
Reply:I wouldn't support federal funding for medical research on how to cure gay-ness just so that these queers can find out that homosexuality isn't a genetic defect. Why spend money to cure a " disease" that isn't a disease but an excuse to some perverts sick habits.
Reply:The same placebo could be administered to cure your bigotry.
Reply:lol
How far should we go into stem cell research?
cloning or medical research
How far should we go into stem cell research?
far enough to cure cancer. We should also be able to clone our own organs so that if we ever needed a new heart or lung or whatever, we won't have to wait on a list for a year till someone died in order to get it.
If we were able to grow a heart on a dish, then we wouldn't have to wait for someone to die.. and we wouldn't have to worry about rejection because it's our own organ.
Reply:far enough til it fails. there is a cure for cancer, the reason why we don't know of it is because the government is suppressing our knowledge.
Reply:stop now.... if god wanted us to know everything he would have told us
home teeth cleaning
How far should we go into stem cell research?
far enough to cure cancer. We should also be able to clone our own organs so that if we ever needed a new heart or lung or whatever, we won't have to wait on a list for a year till someone died in order to get it.
If we were able to grow a heart on a dish, then we wouldn't have to wait for someone to die.. and we wouldn't have to worry about rejection because it's our own organ.
Reply:far enough til it fails. there is a cure for cancer, the reason why we don't know of it is because the government is suppressing our knowledge.
Reply:stop now.... if god wanted us to know everything he would have told us
home teeth cleaning
What are recent medical advancements in parasite research?
Research on the Malaria parasite is ongoing, and discoveries are being made every month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)