Category: Uncategorised

Pneumonia is defined as an infection that causes inflammation of the air sacs in one or both lungs, which can result in the air sacs filling with fluid or pus. It can be caused by a variety of organisms, including viruses, bacteria, and fungi. The common symptoms associated with pneumonia are a cough with phlegm, dyspnea, fatigue, fever, and chills (Mayoclinic, 2016). Pneumonia ranges from mild to severe, with young children, elderly, and immunocompromised people having the highest risk for infection. Pneumonia can be acquired in the community or hospital, and occurs when the infectious organism is inhaled and infects the lungs. Your body is usually able to prevent these infectious organisms from infecting your lungs, but sometimes these germs are able to overpower your body’s defense system and infect you. Treatment involves antibiotics to fight the infection, or other medication in effort of relieving symptoms (Mayoclinic, 2016).

Pneumonia is spread when the infectious organism is inhaled and infects the persons lungs. A controversial question is whether or not healthcare workers have a duty to care for infected patients even if it means putting themselves and their families at a higher-than-usual risk? For pneumonia, I believe that healthcare workers due in fact have a duty to care for infected patients. Healthcare workers are trained on how to appropriately care for a patient with pneumonia. Pneumonia requires for droplet precautions to be taken, as the infectious organism can be spread from coughing or sneezing. Droplet precautions require for the healthcare worker to wear gloves, a gown, a mask, and sometimes eye protection (Alberta Health Services, 2014). These precautions are taken in order to prevent the healthcare worker from being infected with pneumonia while caring for the patient.

Since healthcare workers know how to take the proper precautions when caring for a patient with pneumonia, they should have a duty to care for these patients. Healthcare workers are trained early on in their career on how to properly don and doff personal protective equipment (PPE). In becoming a healthcare worker, you know you are putting yourself and your family at an increased risk for infections. Healthcare workers understand this and should have the duty to care for patients with pneumonia, as they have been taught how to take droplet precautions when caring for someone.

If a patient has an infection that is much more serious than pneumonia, some controversy may rise on this topic. A healthcare worker should never be at risk of contracting an infection when caring for a patient. So if something is so serious that a healthcare worker cannot adequately protect themselves, they should not have to be put at risk for contracting an infection.

Here is a list of 3 policy recommendations for a healthcare workers duty to care for infected patients:

1. Healthcare workers should undergo annual training on how to properly don and doff PPE for contact, droplet, and airborne precautions.
2. Healthcare workers have the responsibility to care for patients as long as they are not at risk of contracting an infection.
3. If a healthcare worker believes they are at risk of contracting an infection, they have the right to refuse providing care for that patient until the risk is corrected.

I believe this is a strong set of policy recommendations for a healthcare workers duty to care for infected patients. The annual training on PPE will assure that the healthcare workers are protecting themselves when caring for infected patients. Healthcare workers should have the responsibility to care for infected patients because these people require help. As long as the healthcare is not at risk of contracting an infection, their duty is to care for that patient. If the healthcare worker feels they are at a risk for infection, they have the right to refuse providing care for that patient. This is so that the healthcare workers will not be at risk for contracting an infection until the problem is corrected.

References

Alberta Health Services. (2014, February). Contact and Droplet Precautions. Retrieved April 9, 2017, from https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/ipc/hi-ipc-contact-and-droplet-precautions-info.pdf

Mayo Clinic Staff. (2016, June 21). Pneumonia. Retrieved April 09, 2017, from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pneumonia/home/ovc-20204676

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising (DTCDA) has created a lot of controversy in recent years because of the outbreak of social media. Drug-to consumer advertising is defined as, “an effort (usually via popular media) made by a pharmaceutical company to promote its prescription products directly to patients” (Ventola, 2011). DTCDA is illegal in most countries, including Canada, but New Zealand and the United States still permit it.

DTCDA is an important social issue because of the vast amount of resources available for companies to use to advertise their product. The internet, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, and other forms of media all have the potential to advertise a company’s drug. This allows for thousands to millions of people to see an advertisement and potentially want the product. With this accessibility, a vast amount of people may be inclined to seek a drug that they saw an advertisement about.

Two strong arguments that support DTCDA is that it informs, educates, and empowers patients, as well as encourages patient compliance. DTCDA can educate patients on health issues, allowing them to take charge of their health. Rather than relying on a health care provider to inform a patient of treatment options, DTCDA allows for patients to have multiple sources where they can seek information. Patient compliance is shown to increase when patients are exposed to DTCDA. This is because it reminds patients about medical conditions and prescriptions, but also reinforces physician recommendations (Ventola, 2011). If a doctor supports what was advertised on the television, a patient will be more complied to follow treatment recommendations since multiple sources are claiming the same thing.

Two strong arguments against DTCDA is that the company may provide misleading information and patients may try to self diagnose themselves with health issues inaccurately and more frequently. Pharmaceutical and media companies are motivated by profit, so the information they provide in advertisements can be persuasive and misleading. This may make patients believe that the advertised drug is going to be the “miracle drug” to their problems (Chow, 2011). If patients are continuously seeing advertisements of drugs that can treat health issues, they may begin to believe that they have complications when they really don’t. This can lead the patient to believe they have a health issue and need treatment for it.

I support the arguments against DTCDA for several reasons. Now a day, anyone can put information on the internet, so deciphering what is true and not true is very difficult. The information that a patient is reading could be completely incorrect, providing them with false knowledge. Pharmaceutical and media companies mainly care about the profit they make, so the more people that they can trick into wanting their drug the better because it means they will make more money. The companies may be misleading with the information they provide, making patients believe that this specific drug is going to fix their problems. Therefore, DTCDA cannot be trusted and should not be permitted.

After looking at some television commercials of DTCDA, I now realize how misleading they can be. The companies make it seem like the drug can give you super powers and cure all your problems. Rather then focusing on the health issue and who the drug is intended for, the advertisements seem to prioritize making the drug appealing and needed. In the end, the company mainly cares about how much profit they can make.

References

Chow, E. C. (2011). Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals on television: a charter challenge. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 9, 73-91. Retrieved March 26, 2017, from https://ojs.library.dal.ca/CJLT/article/viewFile/4839/4358.

Ventola, C. L. (2011). Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising. Pharmacy and Therapeutics,36(10), 669-684. Retrieved March 26, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/.

 

Depression is a condition that effects so many people this day in age. Whether it be yourself, a family member, or even a friend, depression seems to always leave a mark on someone’s life. Personally, two of my sisters have battled with depression so I have a strong understanding of how negatively it effects someone’s life. It really isn’t as easy as “just get over it”, like some people think.

I find it quite shocking that depression is not consider a disease. The definition of a disease is, “A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury” (Oxford Dictionary, 2017). Depression causes symptoms that effect the function in a human in many ways.

Depression produces specific symptoms that effects the function in a human in many negative ways. It can result in the person having difficulty falling asleep, sleeping too much, daytime fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, loss of appetite, muscle aches, and headaches. Depression causes the person to experience feelings of sadness, worthlessness, emptiness, and hopelessness. It may result in the person to have angry outbursts, even over small matters. Lastly, depression causes the person to lose interest and pleasure in the normal activities they used to enjoy (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2016). The side effects of depression put a huge toll on a human’s daily function, making a strong case as to why it should be considered a disease.

The severity of depression greatly varies from person to person, but in all cases, it still affects a human’s function. Depression is a major problem today, so if it was recognized as a disease maybe it would get the much-needed increased attention. A lot of times depression is not just a phase that someone can grow out of, which is why I am a strong believer that it should be considered disease.

References

Mayo Clinic Staff. (2016, July 7). Depression (major depression) Symptoms. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/basics/symptoms/con-20032977

Oxford Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2017, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disease

Is it ethical to use animals in scientific experimentation? This questioned has posed a lot of controversy as everyone appears to have their own opinion on the topic. What is my view? Well, I believe it is ethical to use animals in scientific experimentation.

To begin with, the use of animals in scientific experimentation does a fair share in improving human health. Animal testing helps researchers find drugs and treatments to advance health and medicine, it helps ensure the safety of drugs and other substances that are not regularly exposed to humans, and animals are considered similar to humans, making the data obtained an asset to human health and prosperity (Murnaghan, 2017).

A considerable perk about animal testing is that it improves health and medicine by helping researchers discover drugs and treatments. Many medical treatments such as cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, and vaccines have been made possible because of animal experimentation (Murnaghan, 2017). If animal testing had not assisted in these discoveries, a lot of human lives would have been lost because of the absence of these medical treatments. For new drugs and treatments to be discovered, animal testing must be continued.

Another major positive of animal experimentation is that it helps ensure the safety of drugs prior to their use on humans. With their use, drugs can carry potentially life threatening dangers. Animal testing allows researchers to gauge a drugs safety prior to undergoing clinical trials on humans (Murnaghan, 2017). Animal experimentation potentially saves human lives by reducing the risk of harm and adverse effects occurring from new drugs.

Since animals are relatively similar to humans, the information attained from animal experimentation is beneficial to human health. The data collected can be used to deem the safety of drugs or other substances in humans. Researchers do consider the limitations and differences between animals and humans, but animals are the closet match to humans, allowing for the data collected too be applied to humans (Murnaghan, 2017). Without animals to test on, researchers would not have the information to gauge what is safe for human trail.

The strongest counterargument to my position on animal experimentation being ethical is that animals are killed and kept in captivity during the testing process. Countless lives of animals are lost as the tests they were involved in were too dangerous (Murnaghan, 2017). Is it ethical to spare animals lives for the benefit of humans? Imagine if it was your pet being tested on. I am positive that no one would allow their own pet to be experimented on if they knew there was even a slight chance of the pet being harmed, let alone killed. With that being said, researchers are taking the lives of animals for granted when we know that they have minds of their own and are much more than just test dummies.

My view on the ethics of animal experimentation has not changed since the beginning of this module, as I still believe that it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. The benefits heavily outweigh the negatives as animal testing provides many important insights for the health and prosperity of humans. Animal experimentation aids researchers in finding new drugs and treatments, it helps to ensure the safety of drugs for human use, and the similarity between animals and humans allows for important discoveries to be made that are beneficial to human health (Murnaghan, 2017). Humans must do what is needed for us to survive in this world with endless possibilities.

References

Murnaghan, I. (2017, February 16). Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. Retrieved February 19, 2017, from http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html

Would I donate my body for anatomical education? It’s a tough question to answer but I have finally made my decision. I never have thought about my body being used for anatomical education until participating in this module, and it has made me realize that I would donate my body for dissection.

Firstly, after taking an anatomy class where I was able to study and interact with cadavers, I realized how beneficial they really are. Rather than studying the traditional textbook, pictures and videos, the hands-on learning was a tremendous experience. Being able to interact with real human body parts really helped me understand the anatomy of the human body. Working with cadavers was not only a fun and interesting experience, it was also an effective method of learning. After first-hand experiencing the effectiveness of cadavers and human body parts in teaching the anatomy of the human body, it only makes sense to donate my body in hopes of helping other people learn like the cadavers did for me.

Secondly, the module made me realize that donating my body would be a useful action, whereas being cremated or buried doesn’t pose as much benefit. Yes, being cremated or buried is a special way for people to remember you, but it doesn’t serve to be as useful as compared to donating my body for dissection. I want to be remembered for who I was when I was alive, rather than as an urn or gravestone.

When donating my body to dissection, I would not place any restrictions on the purpose of the dissection, as long as it will benefit science in some way. The least I can do when leaving this world is to try to help others, and donating my body will guarantee this. Preferably, I would hope that my body was used for research as I believe this would give me the best chance in helping the most people after I have passed away.

After sharing my thoughts with one of my best friends, it appears that they agree in my decision of donating my body for dissection. Initially, my friend said that he would not donate his body, but after explaining my reasoning to him he changed his mind. Just like myself, he believes that cadavers are an advantageous way in learning the anatomy of the human body, and that being donated for science is much more useful than being cremated or buried.

Thank you for listening to my thoughts on whether I would donate my body for anatomical education. Now it’s your turn to tell me what you would do!

Matthew Brooks