World’s Fastest Man… With No Legs?

Oscar Pistorius, a South African sprinter, has personal records of 46.34 for the 400meters, 21.58 for the 200meters, and 10.91 for the 100meters. These times all stack up against the best in the world, even if they are not medal worthy at the Olympics. What is truly amazing about Oscar is that he runs without lower legs and uses special prosthetic legs called “Cheetahs”. He was born without fibulas and with other defects in his feet, so his legs were amputated below the knee at 11 months old. Given his personal records in the short sprints, Oscar could easily win Olympic medals in the Paralympics, however, his recent goal was to be able to compete in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games as an able-bodied athlete and not in the Paralympics.

To achieve this goal, Pistorius petitioned the International Association of Athletics Federation, the governing body in track and field, to decide whether or not he could compete. The main objective was to decide whether or not his prosthetics gave him an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes. Biomechanical tests revealed that the “Cheetah” prostheses resulted in “only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent” (Longman 2). Researchers also disproved the belief that his prosthetic legs would provide an extended stride length beyond a normal stride by analyzing gait kinematics that revealed a normal stride pattern and length. In addition, kinematic analysis demonstrated that it takes Pistorius about 30meters longer than able-bodied athletes to get up to full speed. In short sprints, initial acceleration to reach maximum speed is crucial for performance.

Despite the research that demonstrated Pistorius did not have an unfair biomechanical advantage in using the “Cheetahs,” the debate did not diminish. Even though the IAAF ruled that he could not compete in the Olympics, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overruled this decision on May 16, 2008. These two rulings reflect the two sides of the argument, with prosthetics lower legs, Pistorius doesn’t have the same lactic acid that reduces performance as other runners. In addition, the Cheetahs do not require the same amount of energy to maintain top end speed, Gert-Peter Bruggemann of the German Sport University in Cologne looked into Pistorius situation on behalf of the IAAF. He found that he expended 25% less energy than able-bodied athletes running at the same speed and that "from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting” (qtd in Espn’s IAAF Rules…). So what should be done? Obviously the answer to whether or not he has an advantage is ambiguous depending on the biomechanical, mechanical, or physiological perspective, but this type of situation is becoming more and more prevalent; as biotechnology improves, so do the extents to which humans are aided by technology.


Sources relevant to my post:
Associated Press. "IAAF rules Pistorius' prosthetics give him unfair advantage." ESPN. 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2009.

Longman, Jere. "An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?" The New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2009.

The Future of Bioethics

Even though bioethics is a rather new field, there is already debate as to which course it should take in the future. In a recent speech by Zeke Emanuel, a leading scholar in the bioethics field, Emanuel argued that for bioethics to be successful in the future there would have to be a much greater focus on collecting and interpreting data because of the current lack of an empirical foundation for which to base their normative claims. While some bioethicists may agree with Emanuel’s desire for a shift in focus towards data, Arthur Caplan is not among them. While Caplan acknowledges that there needs to be more data for bioethics to be successful moving forward, he refutes that there needs to be a shift towards data collection. Caplan argues that bioethics should continue to be based upon history and past cases. He also states that bioethicists must remain in public places so that they can shape policies with coherent arguments based upon that data available to them.

While both make good arguments, I tend to agree more with Caplan. Often there are no clear-cut right answers in bioethics. As such, people make arguments based upon the best available data and past history. Therefore, while more and superior data would help bioethicists support their normative claims, data, as Caplan argues, will never be able to fully supplant the rational arguments for or against a treatment because “for every ethical problem for which sufficient data exists to point toward an answer a hundred blossom for which the data don't.” For example, Ashley was the first “pillow angel” to go forward with estrogen treatment, a hysterectomy, and a mastectomy. There was no specific data (Gunther even admits that they didn’t really know the risks going into the treatment) directing the ethics board in their decision, it was only their moral arguments based upon history and values. Therefore, while more data helps improve bioethics in certain areas, future bioethicists should continue to go to bioethics programs which teach them how to draw from data, history, and their own values in determining if the issues at hand are ethical or not.

Skinny Bitch

I was a bit hesitant as I opened this book by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, two former models who turned into self-taught nutrition experts. I didn’t expect to learn much from it. “I’ll read it for fun since Kathy recommended it.” I thought. And then I was amazed by its clarity and convincing arguments.
What interested me is the authors’ study of others’ research on the way we consume food today. Never before have human beings been exposed to so many food choices. We can buy large chunks of meat or fish from the supermarket at a considerably low price. However, a few thousand years ago in the ancient world, people regarded meat eating as an extravagant experience in life. We eat more and move less. The excess energy just accumulates and causes obesity all around the world. However, this is not the end of the story.
The media and all sorts of experts make it sound as if we need to have a “balanced” diet that includes meat, vegetables, dairy, grain, etc. The book reveals another side of the story: half of all antibiotics made in the US are administered to farm animals. Therefore while you eat a piece of chicken, you also take in “benzene hexachloride (BHC), chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin, heptachlor, HCB, and lindane”. It’s the same case for pesticides, steroids, and hormones. And a piece of fish also contains high levels of mercury and other pollutants accumulated through the food chain that can be well absorbed by human body. Moreover, as most of the meat we purchase is frozen, we never get to know if the animal were sick or if the meat is fresh or not. There are some unbelievable data in the book that might make you draw a parallel between eating meat and committing suicide.
The book is engrossing in the way that it analyzes each kind of food (including dairy and egg) that we think is indispensable in our life, and proves how it actually harms our body based on solid data. After reading the book I found it convinces people to be vegan instead of teaching them tactics on losing weight. Beware! If you are tempted to read it, think carefully because you might be convinced so much that you decide to become a vegan. At least I tried that for a month after reading, but soon I went back to being omnivorous because I can’t resist the temptation of homemade authentic Chinese food.

Thanks to:
Freedman, Rory and Barnouin, Kim. Skinny Bitch. Running Press. 2005.

Truly A Monster Study

An experiment performed in 1939 by Wendell Johnson has been nicknamed “The Monster Study” due to the horrific procedure involved and complete absence of any form of ethical experimentation. In order to test the effects of speech therapy, Johnson and one of his graduate students Mary Tudor collected 22 orphans to test. They divided the orphans into two groups: one that would be praised for their speech fluency and another group that would receive negative therapy. In this group therapy, the orphans would be told they had severe stuttering problems and that they mispronounced almost every word. Tudor attempted to belittle the children and make them increasingly self-conscious of their “problem”. Many of the orphans involved in the study had no stuttering problems whatsoever. One group of non-stutterers was told that they had the beginnings of a speech problem and that if they could not talk correctly, they should not talk at all.
The emotional abuse of these clear speaking children manifested itself into a complete reluctance to speak and increased self-consciousness. These psychological scares often have proven to be life-long. One orphan Norma Jean Pugh was “regarded as a misfit after she developed a stutter…she now lives as a recluse” (www.psych.stanford.edu). This is just one example of how unethical experiments can cause a huge impact on the lives of the subjects. Although an experiment that lasts only a week seems harmless, the damaging effects can sometimes never be erased. Even though there were not clear-cut ethical laws in place, I am extremely shocked that at the most basic human level, no one stepped in. A study on orphan children already appears inhumane. I am constantly appalled at the lack of heart science continues to demonstrate to the world. It is this concept that makes me doubt further advancement in technologies and genetic modification.

Thanks to:
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~bigopp/stutter2.html
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/07/11b.php

Protect the Body or Let It Suffer?

My dad always tells me to not use anti-bacterial lotions or hand soaps because it makes my immune system weaker. How can something that is suppose to protect me from becoming sick actually end up making me get sick in the long run?

With the advancement of new medicines and bacteria killing solutions, human bodies are suffering. When babies are born they often get routine vaccinations, one of which is acetaminophen, or better known as Tylenol. The drug prevents people from getting a fever and for a fever to become so severe that it can cause seizures. A recent study that has taken place in Czech has said that due to the vaccine, it is making other vaccines less potent. Since fever is part of an immune response, when the vaccine tries to reduce the fever, it results in not letting the body create the appropriate amount of antibodies.

450 children were divided up into two groups. One group received acetaminophen while the other did not. The group that did not receive the shots got more fevers, but only 1% of those kids had a fever above 103 degrees. "The group of children that did receive the shot however had “significantly lower” levels of antibodies against pneumococcus, Hib, tetanus, and whooping cough." The Czech has not officially concluded anything from this study except for that acetaminophen should only be given when necessary.

What I take away from this study is that the advances we are making in the medical field are beneficial but not in all cases. Nowadays, people are hit harder by illnesses like the flu or the common cold. We are protected from germs as soon as we come out of the womb, and because of that, our bodies suffer because they are not probably prepared to tackle these things with the appropriate antibodies. Years ago, before we had Purell that could kill 99.9% of germs on the spot, little kids would roll around in the dirt, not wash their hands, and no one would worry about anything. Now that times have changed, we are all so weary of becoming sick and because of that we do anything to instantly protect ourselves instead of thinking about what our bodies will benefit from in the long run. So now when I get a headache, I’m not quick to take Tylenol. And when I become sick, antibiotics are never the first thought. Allowing my body to suffer may be uncomfortable for the time being but I know I’m protecting it in the long run.

resource-http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/health/20glob.html?_r=1&ref=health

Forgetting Pain, Forgetting Humanity

A few months ago I watched a few segments of Charlie Kaufman’s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” While I only saw a few snippets of the film, the storyline was out of the ordinary, and certainly succeeded in catching my attention. In this film, the main character Joel (played by Jim Carrey) falls in love with a young lady. After sharing many wonderful memories, they have a harsh break up. Soon after, Joel gets an official-looking notification that alerts him that his ex-girlfriend erased all her memories of him via a form of selective memory erasure, and that it would be greatly appreciated if he refrained from causing any confusion by re-entering her life. He then proceeded to have his own memories erased, but, in the middle of the memory warping procedure, he decided that he did not want to forget about his girlfriend, because even though the painful memories would be erased, all the tender and happy memories would pass away too.

While this was a fictional story, it certainly made me curious. With the current level of research, the possibility of erasing memories may be nearer than we may think. There are already drugs that erase or numb bad memories, and physicians are learning more about the brain each day. So, if someone could select certain memories to erase, would that be ethical? I think that one would have to be extremely cautious when deciding to have parts of his memory erased. While there could be potential benefit for people who have experienced truly traumatic experiences, mind erasure could be used to avoid all sorts of pain, and could seriously alter the mindset of the general public.

Perhaps in extreme cases where people have witnessed gruesome murders or been in a grisly war, these people could be treated with a form of selective memory erasure. In more general terms, if someone begins to experience severe mental distress, that does not appear to decrease with a substantial amount of time, and that is a result of a horrific memory, erasing traumatizing memories may be a legitimate option.

While these extreme cases seem to justify the use of memory erasure in select cases, the allowance of selective memory erasure would have to be treated with the utmost caution. Consider the situation where memory erasure procedures do not have any health risks. This procedure would have to be very limited and available to only those with severe mental disturbance. Otherwise, people may take advantage of the procedure or drug that enables this erasure and may harm or manipulate others, and the victims will have no idea what happened to them. In society, chaos may ensue when some people have no memory of a certain event, while others do. If this procedure is abused, in an extreme case, people will begin to deny certain events, and accuse others of lying all because they do not have the same memories. For example, many people were severely hurt and traumatized by the terrorist attacks on September 11. What would happen if some people had this lasting memory of the attacks, while others have no clue and deny its occurrence?

In terms of humanity and character, what would happen if someone turned to memory erasure after every sad or harmful event? People would lose their humanity and feeling. Living through sad or hurtful events or situations is indeed painful, but it puts life into perspective. Knowing sadness leads people to understand how good goodness is via juxtaposition. And knowing hurt helps people to learn not to hurt, but rather to appreciate. Hard times give us the opportunity to respond to these hard times in a dignified way, which, as a result, shapes good character. Of course it is easy for people to be “good” when nothing is bothering them, but true character is revealed and seasoned through one’s response to trying situations. So, erasing every little harmful, sad, or upsetting memory would compromise the character of the individual.

While selective memory erasure could undoubtedly relieve severely disturbed individuals of painful and haunting memories, it also has the potential to induce mass chaos and dehumanization. Therefore, I think that mind erasing procedures should be strictly limited to those in extreme torment—such as disturbed war veterans, or people who witnessed particularly gruesome, traumatizing, and mind altering events.

Sources:

http://www.jimcarreyonline.com/movies/eternalsunshine.html?p=2#about

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16893-drugfree-memory-erasure-could-lead-to-spotless-minds.html

To assist or not to assist: that is the question.

In the state of Montana, courts may soon recognize Montana as the first state in the United States to advocate assisted suicide as a “protected right under a state constitution.”

Robert Baxter, a 76-year-old truck driver from Montana, recently died from lymphocytic leukemia, but during the past year, he stubbornly fought for “the right to die with help from his doctor,” hoping to somehow bring about a quicker end to his agony.

Instead, patients much like Mr. Baxter, particularly those with terminal illnesses, continue to suffer endlessly even though no available treatment to relieve them of their pain is in sight.

As the ones experiencing every acute pain, patients should be the ones deciding how they want to live or die. Who are we as outsiders to judge whether or not they have the right to die and escape the pain? The rights of patients like Mr. Baxter need to be protected and even expanded; it is our responsibility to ensure that the patients are making the most of what little time they have left, and if staying alive only hurts the patients more, then perhaps death is the better option. If life is too painful and agonizing for them, why not ease their suffering and fulfill their wishes?

Ms. Tucker, director of legal affairs for a national group advocating the rights of terminally ill patients, has the right notion when she notes, “It’s about empowering patients and giving them the right to decide when they have suffered enough.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/us/01montana.html?_r=1