Too Old to Drive? by E.H.

Editor's note: The blog post below was written by a student in the spring of 2016.

Many practitioner and doctors recommend the family dictate when their elderly loved ones are not suitable to operate a vehicle anymore. When a family has to notify a beloved, elderly person that they are no longer suitable to drive, it can put an enormous strain of their relationship. Often, in my personal experience, the elderly person puts up a fight and refuses to stop driving. An elderly person not suitable to drive puts the elderly person and other innocent people’s safety at risk. If an elderly person had to pass a yearly driving test, a yearly mental exam, and a yearly physical exam after the age of seventy, this could greatly decrease unneeded accidents and the emotional toll that follows those accidents.

                As people age, their bodies are mentally and physically worn down. Elderly people’s eyesight is worsened, hearing is worsened, mental health and memory are also diminished. When their bodies become weaker and clumsier, elderly people tend to fall more. A study was performed by the Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics making a connection between falling and memory loss. The author stated that people over sixty had a substantial increase in the number of falls they took in a year; the more falls an elderly person had, the more of a substantial decrease they had in their eyesight (Nunes, 2014). Poor eyesight can cause an elderly person that is driving to hit objects, people or other cars. Elderly people driving with poor eyesight can put themselves and many other people at risk of being hurt or even killed if the accident is bad enough. Elderly people who are required to have their license renewed every year could decrease the accidents substantially because vision loss for elderly can happen very rapidly.

                Elderly people are also faced with mental illness such as dementia, memory loss, and Alzheimer’s disease. A journal article, Aging and Mental Health, stated the increased risk of these diseases and the cognitive effect these diseases have on an elderly person’s mental state (Chappell, 2008). A person who suffers from one of these diseases experiences symptoms rapidly. These symptoms cause them to not remember where they are or what they are doing, can cause them to get confused of directions, and get scared when they cannot figure out what to do. If an elderly person were driving when this happened, this could cause the elderly person to wreck or hit someone, putting themselves and others at risk. Because the symptoms overcome a person so rapidly, a mental health test every year could help prevent these unnecessary accidents.

                The Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination conducted a study to prove there was a substantial decreasing in hearing related to increasing age. The study tested 15,606 participants of all different ages, races, and genders with frequencies at 3 kHz, 4 kHz, and 6 kHz; the test concluded that as age increased the hearing threshold of all the tested frequencies worsened (Parks, 2016). As hearing is worsened, it can make it harder or impossible for elderly people with hearing problems to hear horns or other alerts drivers give to prevent accidents. With not being able to hear the car horn’s warning, it could cause an elderly person to cause more wrecks. Having a hearing test every year can determine if the elderly are suitable to drive based on their hearing conditions. This could help prevent unnecessary accidents, injuries, and even deaths.

                Taking all of the precautions can save numerous lives. Saving theses lives will save people from wasting time, save people from the emotional toll that can follow these accidents, and save families from having to fight with their loved ones if they are suitable to drive or not. The head of the Rehabilitation Counselling Unit at the University of Sydney reported that 30 percent of people faced negative psychological problems after being completely healed from being in an accident (After the Crash, 2016). If an elderly person were to get in an accident and the accident killed another person, they would have the potential to be charged with vehicular homicide. Vehicular homicide would have a financial toll on the elder, a mental and moral toll on the elder, a toll on the victims and victim’s family involved, an emotional toll on all the first responders, doctors, and nurses who have to treat the victims and elder after the accident, and the accident would even take an emotional toll on the lawyers, judge, and jury system involved in the legal aspect of it.

                It is often said by the counterview this would be defensive and disrespectful to make our elders take a driving test every year. Many older people argue that it is pointless and they know when they can no longer drive. But in 2012, The Center for Disease and Control Prevention stated there were 5,560 elderly adults killed and 214,000 adults were injured because of accidents caused by elderly (Older Adult Drivers, 2016). Putting a law in place requiring elderly people over seventy to renew could save thousands of lives. Is it worth risking thousands of lives in fear that we may offend our elders?

                If an elderly person is not fit to drive, it is hard for family to have the power to take the elderly off the road. Putting a law in place permitting not suitable elders for driving could save thousands of lives. The law could also save the emotional toll these accidents can have on the driver, the victims, and loved ones of the driver and the victims.

               

References

After the Crash- the mental battle. (2016, January 08). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/geared/your_driving_skills/car_crashes/after_the_crash.html

Chappell, N. L. (2008). Aging and mental health. Social Work In Mental Health, 7(1-3), 122-138. doi:10.1080/15332980802072454

Nunes, B. P., de Oliveira Saes, M., Siqueira, F. V., Tomasi, E., Silva, S. M., da Silveira, D. S., & ... Thumé, E. (2014). Falls and self-assessment of eyesight among elderly people: A population-based study in a south Brazilian municipality. Archives of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 59(1), 131-135. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.004

Older Adult Drivers. (2015). Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/older_adult_drivers/

Park, Y. H., Shin, S., Byun, S. W., & Kim, J. Y. (2016). Age- and gender-related mean hearing threshold in a highly-screened population: The Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2010–2012. 11(3), 1-13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150783

Water Fluoridation: the Silent Denial, by Alexander Ramsey

Editor's note: A student of mine composed this argument in the spring of 2016.

            As the typical person reaches for a glass of water, little thought goes into what they are actually consuming. As a developed society, we have placed a great deal of trust in our local government to provide us with healthy, refreshing, and clean water. In reality, you are ingesting a toxic soup of chemicals and additives. Some of these chemicals are harmless and placed in our water to ensure that the water remains potable. Others were added with or without your consent on the grounds of good dental hygiene and backed by hasty inconclusive research. The matter of water fluoridation has been at the forefront of the scientific and medical research battlefield for years with little hope of a cease fire. At an early age we are briefed by our family dentist on the importance of fluoride in regards to the health of our teeth. What the dentist neglected to explain was the part about how fluoride is a chemical, if ingested can cause adverse developmental and physical health effects throughout the body. This possibly harmful chemical has been placed into many water supplies throughout the nation. The fluoridation of the municipal water supply does not provide any measureable health benefits through its consumption but may do more harm than good.    

            The craze of water fluoridation started to take root within our nation about 50 years ago. According to an article entitled Doctored Water (2003) “more than 70 percent of our nation’s drinking water is medicated to treat the teeth, according to figures released by the U.S Census Bureau” (p.6). The process of water fluoridation is a very profitable endeavor for the big businesses involved. The industry with the most to gain through the fluoridation of the local water is the phosphate-fertilizer industry. Authors Coffel and Samuel (1992) warn in their article entitled The Great Fluoride Fight that “Fluosilicic acid, the most common fluoridation agent , is highly corrosive and a byproduct of phosphate-fertilizer manufacture…Stannous fluoride, used in toothpaste, is a by-product of steel-can recycling operation”(p.32). A person can come to see that through this new “miracle cure” a lot of money can be made by large business. This is one of the main reasons why the idea has been pressed on the American people in such a strong manner. The only people who are caught in the cross fire are people like you and me.

            The effects of this mass dental treatment has had wide spread effects that have been seen throughout the country. Most notably was the flurry of law suits targeted at the phosphate industry due to multiple cases of mass poisoning and local environmental damages. According to an article in the November 1979 issue of The Annapolis Evening Capitol, “Too much fluoride was dumped into the public water system and resulted in the acute poisoning of approximately 10,000 people” (as cited in Askeroth, 2003). In another case, Coffel & Samuel (1992) reported, “In 1990 the ADA (American Dental Association) was sued by 40 of its members who claim the Association is misleading the public about the safety of both fluoridation and mercury-amalgam fillings” (p.32).

            The leading argument for the use of fluoride in water is the idea that it prevents tooth decay and the common cavity. Studies have shown that when fluoride is applied topically to the surface of the teeth (not ingested), in small amounts, certain forms of tooth decay can be managed. When fluoride is ingested throughout a life time and at early stages of development, the effects can be wide spread and devastating. In 2007, a study was conducted in China to determine the correlation between the loss of IQ in children and the consumption of fluoride and arsenic within the local water supply. The study, conducted by San-Xiang et al. (2007) revealed fluoride to be “associated with neurotoxic effects in children” (p.115). Parents should think again before reaching for that fluoride enhanced water for their children. The developing mind of a child is not the only thing that is affected. In the early days of the fluoride craze, the American Dental Association warned that “even minuscule amounts of fluoride will cause osteosclerosis, spondylosis, osteoporosis, and goiter and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is a doubtful procedure to prevent dental disfigurement among children” (as cited in Askeroth, 2003). Most of these degenerating cases are not realized until later years when it is already too late. Why would a strong, developed country like the United States allow this sort of thing to continue?            

            Most of the developed countries in the world have opened their eyes to the negative side effects of water fluoridation. An article in the Nutrition Health Review explains “countries in Europe…have strict laws against adding fluorides to drinking water supplies. Less than 2% of the drinking water in Europe is fluoridated” (Askeroth, 2003). Doctors within the United States have long debated if fluoride is really necessary in our water. In other countries the debate has caused certain doctors to change their stance on the issue, even admitting to having used “bullying tactics” to further water fluoridation (Askeroth, 2003). Do they know something we do not? The answer is a resounding no. Until recently, the U.S has turned a blind eye to evidence that has been brought forth in the last 50 years showing fluoride to be dangerous. In a recent article published on Time.com, author Alexandra Sifferlin (2015) reported that “…the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its recommendation for an optimal concentration of fluoride at 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The previous recommendations, released in 1962, allowed for between 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter” (p.1). The good news is that the U.S is starting to move in the right direction of understanding the effects of fluoride and working to minimize the overall daily exposure. Although the thought is not completely abandoned, the country is slowly realizing that citizens are still utilizing the topical benefits of fluoride through other means.  

            In summary, we have shown the idea of water fluoridation to be a complex and lengthy argument debated on by the scientific community for years. The whole of the fluoride argument rests on the hopeful idea of better dental hygiene for America and possibly the world. The facts and research show us the real health risks to this extra additive to our water. It is important for citizens to research and understand for themselves what goes into their drinking water. Water is one of the most precious commodities on earth and should be used as a tool for the betterment of our health.

                                                                    

References

Askeroth, J. (2003). Doctored water. Nutrition Health Review: The Consumer's Medical Journal, (86), 6-8.

Coffel, S., & Samuel, D. (1992). The great fluoride fight. Garbage, 4 (3), 32.

San-Xiang, W., Zheng-Hui, W., Xiao-Tian, C., Jun, L., Zhi-Ping, S., Xiang-Dong, Z., & ... Zhi-Quan, W. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: Children's IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (4), 643-647.

Sifferlin, A. (2015). U.S. says there should be less fluoride in drinking water. Time.Com, N.PAG

Too Many Electronics, Too Early, by M. Penrod

Editor's note: A student, M. Penrod, wrote the following argument for my WRIT 1311 class in the spring of 2016.

Ten years ago, people could walk outside of their house and see children running around with their friends, riding bikes together, or even doing less active activities, such as blowing bubbles or drawing on the sidewalk with chalk. If you walk outside today, you will not find any children participating in these activities. Instead you will find children inside with their attention fully captured by a small electronic screen or engrossed in a video game that is more important than the reality that they live in. More and more often, children are being exposed to electronics as early as one year old and are becoming attached and dependent on these devices as a source of entertainment. These striking events have shown that an early exposure to electronics is having serious social effects on children of the next generation.

In the first three years of a child’s life, their brain is about 85% developed (Lally, 2012). These first three years are crucial for social and cognitive development in a child because by the time a child is three years old, they should know how to talk and how to interact with other children. Psychologists have noted that, “play is more than what children of preschool age do to pass the time. Instead, play helps preschoolers develop socially, cognitively, and physically” (Feldman, 2015, p. 179). When you take away the play aspect of a child’s life, they are not able to develop fully and this will cost them in the future. Psychologists have established different stages of play that preschoolers go through that aide in their social and cognitive development. People need social interaction in order to maintain a healthy mindset. It can be concluded that if electronics are substituted for active and creative play, then children will not build upon their imagination, therefore affecting the creative abilities they need in life to solve problems. Problem solving skills are essential for a person’s success in life because people are faced with new problems every day and these skills help them resolve their issues and move on. People without these skills will have a harder time overcoming simple obstacles and will become more stressed out over these situations. 

It is a known fact that children learn the most effectively by visual representations. The top visual influence in a child’s life is the television. Scientists have recorded that the average child watches more than twenty-one hours of TV in a week (Gentile, 2004). Popular TV shows for children often exhibit violence and crude references that are not appropriate for them. These subtle remarks and violent outbursts can have long term effects on the young viewers and can easily be the cause of an increase in aggression in children as they grow older. As a result, it is encouraged by pediatricians that parents should monitor programming and encourage alternative forms of entertainment, such as reading, athletics, hobbies, and creative play (American, 2001). By encouraging outdoor activities, children will be able to stimulate the “motor movement” area of their brain and also engages their creative juices while they are interacting with other children. Not only do TV shows have negative effects on child viewers, but video games do too. It has been recorded that adolescents spend anywhere between thirty-five and fifty-five hours playing video games or playing on other media devices (Gentile, 2004). Popular video games among male adolescents are often very violent and have been connected with aggressive behavior in the video game player when they are not playing these games (Feldman, 2015, p. 189). If these young, developing, boys continue to play these violent video games, then they will be more likely to be aggressive and violent as adult men.

On several T.V. shows that adolescents watch, they get the wrong idea of what a family is. In our society, divorce is a common principle that is brushed off as nothing major. In the past, couples getting a divorce was almost unheard of and, to some people, frowned upon. This idea is demonstrated in many shows that present a single mom or father taking care of their children. One of T.V.’s most popular shows, Grey’s Anatomy, demonstrates this principle. Main characters are seen starting relationships and the audience follows them as the characters go through their ups and downs. On several occasions the audience sees the characters hit a major bump in their relationship and they either end the relationship or file for a divorce. Even though the show is not intentionally conveying this message, teens are seeing and learning that it is easier to terminate the relationship instead of working through the problems you are facing and rebuilding the relationship afterwards.

Not only will an electronics-addiction affect the families yet to come, but it is also affecting the ones in the present. Parents are often seen giving their young children their smart phones in public places in order to keep them from screaming or even talking.  Children will become accustomed to this pattern and will expect to be given the cell phone every time they go out with their parents. Children and adolescents are becoming addicted to surfing the internet or playing games on tablets and are showing signs of not being able to function without their devices. Psychiatrists have concluded that future generations will become more agitated when things do not go their way because “everything can be ‘now’ and on their terms, from mixing their own hip-hop music choices (on iPods), to when (via [DVR recorders]) and where (arranged by cell phone) they watch their desired television shows” (Brody, 2006). The patience in the next generation will be little to none, and will have negative effects on the generation after.

Some people would argue that electronic advancements have a positive effect on a child’s access to information and communication. While computers and tablets do help with research and school projects, they are also easy distractions to the students that are using them. There is something hypnotizing about using a computer or tablet for your own personal interests. Electronics have made it possible to maintain long distance relationships with family members and friends that have moved away, but children are abusing this privilege because they are using technology to make new friends from behind a screen instead of in person. Relationships cannot be built through a screen because you are missing a key fundamental interaction for good relationships, face-to-face conversations. Because adolescents and children are not experiencing this interaction, they are becoming socially awkward and will not have the right background knowledge for social interactions in the future. It has been noted by writer, Carolyn Gregorie, that people today are adapted to holding conversations with others while being interrupted by an electronic device (Gregorie, 2013). Eye contact in a conversation is the most crucial aspect because that allows the other conversationalist to know that they are being heard and listened to.  Limited eye-contact experience can hinder children and adolescents when they are older and trying to get a job because they may have a difficult time looking their interviewer in the eye when they are speaking. This simple, unprofessional action can be a deciding factor when it comes to giving the applicant the job or not. 

Even though electronics have had a great impact on scientific advancements, they have had a negative effect on younger children and adolescents that use these devices daily. These children have not been able to develop fully, which will impact their future successes in social and professional encounters. Children and adolescents have also been heavily influenced by the suggestive violence and social acceptances in T.V. shows and video games that they watch and play. Indeed electronics allow for speedy communication and information gathering, but adolescents are becoming accustomed to these quick processes and will soon rely on their devices to do things for them in the future.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics: Children, adolescents, and television. (2001). Pediatrics, 2, 423-6.

Brody, M. (2006). Understanding teens in this age of digital technology. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 12, 8.

Feldman, R. S. (2015). Discovering the Life Span (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 179, 1.

Gentile, D., Oberg, C., Sherwood, N., Story, M., Walsh, D., & Hogan, M. (2004, November). Well-child visits in the video age: pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines for children's media use. Pediatrics, 5, 1235-1241 7.

Gregoire, C. (2013, July 28). How technology is killing eye contact. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/28/why-youre-not-making-eye-_n_4002494.html

Lally, R. (2012, February 22). The human brain from birth to age 3. Retrieved from http://forourbabies.org/2012/02/22/the-human-brain-from-birth-to-age-3-2/

The Question of Embryonic Stem Cells

Editor's note: A student (who prefers to remain anonymous) composed the argument below for my WRIT 1311 course in 2016.

Human embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated issue. It causes great moral and ethical dilemmas. Some people feel that embryonic stem cell research can lead to many great breakthroughs in science and medicine. Others believe that it deprives a human being from having a life, and for this reason, should not be used in research. I believe that taking human embryonic stem cells for research is unethical and should be illegal. The embryo has the ability to develop into a human being. Cloning is not a more ethical way of obtaining embryonic stem cells and should not be used to obtain human embryonic stem cells. Lastly, obtaining adult stem cells is more ethical because it does not involve destroying an embryo and it has been used to treat many diseases.

            In an article written by lawyer Mattie S. Kollmann (2010), she explains what stem cells are. She states that stem cells can be found in many places in the body. They are found in bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and embryos.  Stem cells are unspecialized and after long periods of being dormant, can restore themselves through the process of cell division. They have the ability to develop into specialized cells for a particular function such as becoming specific to organs and tissues. Stem cells can also be used to repair body tissue and can treat diseases such as Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease (Kollmann, 2010, p.146). 

            Human embryonic stem cell research should be illegal because it takes away the right to life. Fritz Allhoff (2005), a professor at Western Michigan University, points out that obtaining human embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of the human embryo, which can cause great moral dilemma. He notes that stem cells come from the blastocyst.  A blastocyst has two layers of cells, the trophoblastocyst on the outside and embryonic stem cells on the inside.  The outside layer is removed and then the stem cells are then extracted. This results in destroying the embryo (Allhoff, 2005, p. 29). I feel that destroying the embryo is unethical. It prevents it from developing into a human being.  Every human being should have the right to live and destroying embryonic human stem cells prevent this from happening.

            Cloning of embryonic stem cells is not a more ethical alternative to obtaining stem cells. Researchers at Oregon Health and Science University have used cloning to create human embryonic stem cells.  These researchers used the skin cells of a baby who suffered from a genetic disease. The cells were combined with human eggs to create an embryo and then the stem cells were retrieved from the embryo. This technique was the same one used when creating Dolly the sheep.  In the case with Dolly the sheep, though, the embryo was planted inside a mother sheep. Concerning the baby, the embryo was not planted inside a mother and the researchers who created this embryo did not plan on implanting their embryos into a human. They also noted that their technique could not produce a baby that was able to sustain life  (Pallock, 2013). In this case it is not moral and is still destroying an embryo.  It prevents the human embryo from having a life. In the article Cloning is used to Create Embryonic Stem Cells, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, reports that even for therapeutic purposes, human cloning is unethical because it “treats human beings as products, manufactured to order to suit other people’s wishes” (as cited in Pallock, 2013). Human beings should not be used as products to fulfill the desires of other people.

             A more ethical alternative to obtaining human embryonic stem cells is obtaining adult stem cells. Using adult stem cells does not pose moral and ethical issues like embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be found in bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and various other parts of the body.  Methods for obtaining adult stem cells do not involve destroying an embryo and, therefore, do not deny the right to life.  The Indianapolis Business Journal (2010) has noted that adult stem cell transplants have become lifesaving to people suffering from leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers (“Adult Stem Cell Research,” p. 22). In another article, Alex R. Szeles (2010), a business executive, who was given two years to live after being diagnosed with cancer, also states “Adult stem cell transplants have miraculously extended my life and the lives of countless others around the globe” (p. 14). As seen with Szeles and numerous other people, adult stem cells have been used to save lives and do not involve the destruction of an embryo.

            People who are for embryonic stem cell research may argue that the embryo does not possess the qualities of a conscious human being and, therefore, does not have the right to life. They say that the embryo is just a bundle of cells. People who have this view do not consider that the embryo is a developing human being. In an article written by Kristina Hug (2006), an assistant researcher in medical ethics at Lund University, she argues

Human embryos differ from other human beings not in what they are, but in their stage of development. A human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage, just as an infant or an adolescent is a human being in the infant or adolescent stage of its life. (p. 108)

The National Institute of Health (2015) also reports that during the embryonic period of fetal development, the embryo’s major organs such as the brain, spinal cord, and heart start to develop. The embryo grows at a rapid pace and some external features begin to develop (Fetal Development). All of this contributes to the development of a living human being and human embryos should not be considered anything less than a living human being able to sustain life.

            In conclusion human embryonic stem cell research should be illegal.  It is not ethical and causes lots of moral dilemma. Every person has the right to live and continuing to do human embryonic stem cell research denies the human embryo of his or her right. Using adult stem cells has been shown to help cure various diseases and cancers. It should get more attention because it does not come with the ethical issues of human embryonic stem cell research.

References

Adult stem cell research surges ahead. (2010). Indianapolis Business Journal, 31(24), 20

Allhoff, F. (2005, November/December). Stem cells and the Blastocyst Transfer Method: some concerns regarding autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(6), 28-30. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16282110

Hug, K. (2006). Therapeutic perspectives of human embryonic stem cell research versus the moral status of a human embryo: Does one have to be compromised for the other. Mecdicana (Kaunas, Lithuania), 42(2), 107-14. Retrieved from http://www.eurostemcell.org/files/Hug_Medicina%20(Kaunas)%202006%3B%2042(2).pdf  

Kollmann, M. S. (2010). Taking the moral high road: Why embryonic stem cell research should be strictly regulated. Faulkner Law Review, 2(1), 145-192. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/faulklr2&div=9&id=&page=

National Institute of Health. (2015). Medical encyclopedia. Fetal development. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Pollack, A. (2013, May 15). Cloning is used to create embryonic stem cells. The New York Times. Retrieved from   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/science/scientists-use-cloning-to-create-embryonic-stem-cells.html?_r=0

Szeles, A. R. (2010). Adult stem cell research is good business. Central Penn Business Journal, 26(25), 14.