A Semester of Reflection

Going into this class, I had a typical idea of what we'd be studying. I expected Frankenstein and Burke & Hare to be literary foci, as they were, but I had no idea I'd walk away with knowledge on things like revolutionary medical operations and discoveries of the 19th century. From having no interest whatsoever in a medicinal or medical science field before the semester, I honestly can say I found the majority of readings far from boring. Some were sometimes too descriptive for my reading tastes, but the material was usually always enlightening; it was also a great reminder of how grateful I am for living a healthy life in the 21st century. I'm glad I was introduced to such random (in my opinion) information and concepts. 

The first Unit, where we focused on early anatomical discovery and famous serial killers of the 19th century, was definitely some gruesome literature to analyze. I still found Burke & Hare to still be visually entertaining, but there were times where I'd stop reading and just ask myself, "Why am I spending so much time reading about death and corpses and brutality right now?" Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I had read prior to this course, but analyzing Jekyll/Hyde's behavior and his battle with self duality highlighted the creepy yet genius talent of Stevenson. If I took away one last thing from the first unit it would be our discussion on the attitudes towards anatomy and cadavers. It was unnerving, even though in the past and no longer practiced in today's societies, to read how casually a body, a deceased life, was handled and mutilated for the betterment of medical advancement. A person dies in the late 1800s and instead of commemorating their presence, their body is stuffed in a bag (or dragged from 6 feet of dirt) and shipped off to some curious mind like Dr. Knox. What a nightmarish crossover between anatomical experimentation and criminology this time turned out to be. Thankfully, ethics and consciences evolved.

The Astonishing Life of Octavia Nothing, Vol. 1: The Pox Party in particular was a refreshing read. It still incorporated the focus on medical criminality yet left out the heinous subjects of suffocation, rusty tools, blood and pain. Mr. Gitney and co. illustrated how scientists no longer needed to be the men sawing limbs off in the privacy of their basement to be considered mad. Racial eugenics was an equally sick form of medical criminality. I found the Nazi Medical Experiments from Bad Medicine especially hard to fathom, for it boiled down to the ENORMOUS lack of empathy for other human beings and their rights to life on earth. The actionsof the German doctors involved in the experiments were (and forever will be) despicable. From learning more about the cases and the victims, I hold stronger regards for both ethical medical practices and patient consent. The Hippocratic Oath was a great supplement to this unit on ethical research and is a document that should touches on the ideas of medical respect and preservation that should still be abided by today.

I think our last unit of "Madness or Genius?"takes the cake for most interesting. There are a lot of people who consider modern medical research as potential when there are just as many that fear more discovery will threaten society and spiral our ethical limitations out of control. Stiff was what I enjoyed most from this course because it exposed all things taboo that are usually swept under the rug of science. I've read things in Stiff that I know I'll never forget for the rest of my life. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I don't know— what I do know is that Mary Roach taught me all I need to know concerning the life of a cadaver. It was interesting to read how some doctors tolerate working with lifeless bodies, and it prompted the idea of how dehumanization was just as prevalent in the 1860s as it is now in a morgue or dissection room.

Kendal Wronski

X files. "crazy" stuff

The X files episode we watched in class was a very interesting one. Largely due to how closely it echoed the quote in our Twelve monekys movie by brad pitt saying " Crazy is majority rule". In the close of this Episode the entire town was ready to murder the monster, and all stood behind the doctor. Then after simply hearing the monster talk they all suddenly changed their minds and instead arrested the doctor. This was after the monster literally confessed to all the crimes that they were accusing him of. The town went from trying to kill the monster to going to a cher concert because he confessed. It was an interesting plot twist to say the least. This episode also encompassed how doctors sometimes do things " because they can" and not always because they should or because it helps people. This showed a rather negative view of the purpose of some scientific exploration. The father also did what he did " because he can" but he did it to help his "monster" son. This shows how science that can be bad for some people can also be used for good for another which shows the how opinionated some scientific exploration can be.

on the X-files

The X-files have always had an exciting appeal.  With the retro looking black and white appeal, I found it very interesting. With the exception of older, modern film, not many productions or shows are done in black and white anymore. The only real exception would be horror films, and scary movies. The dark and eary look gives the perfecting setting for something to pop out at you, or clash with red blood. This is precisecly what the X-files were trying to do.

With an ugly, deformed, unnatural being in the mix, the show was sure to balance in the likes of a horror film.  Similar to that of Frankenstein, the creature was an outcast searching for human interaction. He did what many people viewed as terrible things, however in his mind he was trying to get his fix of physical interaction and human contact. With no intentions of harming anyone, the being really spoke to me that there was a soft side to this creature. This was confirmed at the end when he was getting his boogy on while Cher sang one of her sappy love songs. In one way many of us can relate to the creature in the sense that sometimes we just want some human interaction, and to be loved. Is it too much to want to feel loved?

by Bryan R.

Posted by Dr. R on Bryan R's behalf.

Chapter 10 "Eat Me"

Before reading this chapter I new very little about cannibalism. All I ever heard about was how Jeffrey Dahmer and how he used it for evil as he consumed his numerous victims. I was surprised to read about how the Chinese commonly used it as a medical treatment for ailments. People would eat certain body parts to help cure their ailments. The consumption of these body parts were considered to be quite beneficial and described as being rather tasty once you got over the fact that you were consuming human flesh. They compared the taste of this flesh with beefsteak and that the breast was the best tasting part of the body. I had a hard time accepting this because cannibalism nowadays is so taboo and is considered inhumane if practiced. This chapter opened my eyes to the broad use of the body and how far medicine has come from the days of using cannibalism as a medical treatment for ailments.

Frankenstein or Scooby Doo?

I have never been a huge X-files fan, finding the characters a little dull and plot lines predicting, and this episode wasn't anything new. But pertaining to class, I thought the main concept and storyline did thematically connect very well to the ideas that we have been discussing. The eerie black and white film, a hideous monster spawn from an experiment gone wrong, and an old crazy man trying to stump the detectives. A seemingly perfect blend between Frankenstein and Scooby-Doo. The horror style plot fit with an emotional ending along with the creation of life through experimentation mirrored Frankenstein well. While the detective sequence and mystery style storyline, with main characters with conflicting points of view seemed to be taken right from Scooby-Doo. Though the mad doctor in this episode I thought played his part very well, probably the best actor in the episode, his evilness and intelligence were both very prevelant. Even though I thought the ending was extremely corny, I thought it was a great watch for a medical madmen class.

X-Files

The first interesting thing that struck me about the X-Files episode is the black and white appearance. In this day and age when a show or film is in black and white they are directly making a statement. It is a deliberate choice to render a feeling. In this situation, the tone focuses on the horror aspect of the monster and the mystery. The monochrome picture is reminiscent of classic horror films. Psychological landscape plays a huge role in setting the tone and here it is mystery, fear, deformation and unnatural experimentation.
In addition to creating a feeling for the show, I was shocked by the first playing of Cher. When would a show play a peppy love song during the scene of an intrusion....and with a MONSTER? I was completely thrown off by this scene and kept me guessing the entire episode. It added humor to this modern take on Frankenstein. But why would humor be successful in this narrative of a classic tale? Is it to play up the idea of a hoax throughout the show? Or maybe to add to the humor of X-Files as a series?

Stiff (Ch. 10-12)

Chapter 10 is titled, “Eat Me”, and discusses the uses and history of medicinal cannibalism. Roach starts off by talking about 12^th century Arabian process which involved “mellifying” a man so that his body can be used 100 years later to “cure complaints”.  She then discusses the history of cannibalism in China and how ill people would often eat body parts or excrement to help heal their ailments. Before reading this, the only cannibalism I had heard of was from the movies “Silence of the Lambs” and “American Psycho”. For this reason, I never assumed that cannibalism had been used for medicinal purposes. In the chapter, the taste of human flesh is described as being “as good as any beefsteak”. To go into further detail, supposedly the breasts of men were considered “the sweetest meat”. Although this chapter was very disgusting to read, I learned the different perspectives that existed in the past of human consumption. In old Chinese practices, human bodies were considered beneficial if consumed. Nowadays, cannibalism is a social stigma and illegal in many countries. Chapter 11 spoke of another way bodies are often consumed, through cremation, composting, water-reduction, and tissue digestion. When cremation first gained attention, it was looked down upon as method to replace the traditional funeral. However, over time, it has become more popular and is gaining momentum even today. Roach also discusses new methods of disposing of a dead body. These methods involve either reducing a dead body to just 3% of it’s remains and disposing of it or breaking down a body into powder using ultrasound and then disposing it. Although these newer methods are not currently popular, just as cremation was when it was introduced, I can them becoming gaining popularity especially since they are environmental friendlier than older methods.

Prateek Prasad

Stiff 10-12

To me cannibalism is associated with ancient tribes and Hannibal. Chapter ten looks to show how cannibalism can be seen as more than just tribes with wood coming from their nose or a crazy man wearing a mask. Medical use and the use of cadavers were utilized for curing of the sick. Roach explains also how the Chinese were among the first to practice the use of cannibalism in order to cure illnesses. This is in contrast to how Western culture now looks at the term cannibalism. Western culture sees it as taboo and only for those who are crazy or have a fetish. Similar to the current event of a NYC police officer taking bids of nearly $20,000 online for kidnapping and the transportation of a female in order to be used for cannibalism. Cremation and blood transfusion are two topics that are seen as ordinary in todays world. Yet both are extremely new in practice comparatively to the medical history. Cremation began in the 19th century and now is used as an accepted form of burial. Blood transfusion started out as drinking the blood and now is something that is widely publicized by company such as the Red Cross with donation centers set up nationwide. 

Stiff Chapters 10-12

If someone mentions cannibalism, medicinal use is not an association I make. In chapter 10, "Eat Me", cannibalism was discussed and it was not just a group of crazy people who lived in the woods with a diet of strangers who wandered too closely to their village, as that is the association I have always come up with. Cannibalism was explained through medicinal uses and the way that cadavers were utilized for  the curing of the living sick. Some of the examples given were still difficult for me to read and imagine those scenarios occurring. For instance, some of the uses for body parts and wastes used for illness such as "diabetics were to be treated with 'a cup of urine from a public latrine'" or human fat used to treat rheumatism and joint pain is a process that makes me uneasy. Yet, a good point is brought up on page 229, "We see nothing distasteful in injections of human blood, yet the thought of soaking in it makes us cringe"To me this makes sense, while some of the treatments seem outlandish, and downright gross, if unorthodox methods are still useful and working, maybe it is, in a matter of medical history, just a way of life when further technology was lacking. Also, it is interesting that we do use blood transfusions and see no harm in it, yet a medicinal use of bathing in blood or drinking it, as in the first attempt at a blood transfusion, is something we wouldn't dream of doing now.

Stiff: Chapters 10-12

I found the chapter on cannibalism the most interesting in the assigned reading. The act of cannibalism is a topic many people are not comfortable with. Unless they are referencing the movie series "Hannibal," many do not know or would want to know about human cannibalism. Roach explains how the Chinese practiced various forms of consuming human flesh for centuries in the pursuit of curing illnesses. Americans associate cannibalism with criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer among many others. I believe it is interesting to view the contrasting views on the matter from the Chinese perspective and the American perspective. Cremation was another topic I found interesting in that I was unaware of how new a practice it is. Cremation beginning in the 19th century was surprising to me just because I know many families choose to cremate their loved ones rather then bury them. While cremation has become a widely accepted method for handling those who have passed away, only two centuries ago cremation was not a widely accepted burial alternative. Chapters 10-12 really contained great material and educated me on subjects I rarely examined on my own.

The Wizard of Oz: Does this new heart come with a soul?

Out of the two chapters in this section I found the first chapter to be more interesting. The main point of chapter eight is based on the discussion of how a dead person is classified, or deemed  dead or alive. I found that I agree with the legal definition that brain-death classifies as death. What interested me was the study done by Dr. Duncan MacDougall about the weight of the soul and how bodies of the recently deceased suddenly lose a significant amount of weight that is hard to contribute to an other cause. However, the study sheds no light on to whether a person who is brain-dead should be classified as dead. I believe that a brain-dead person is in fact dead because most of our soul comes from our mind and thought, and without the brain even the part of the soul that we attribute to the heart, such as gut feelings or unexplained compassion for people, is useless without the brain. The U.S. Army experiment brings up the possibility that the soul is connected through our cells no matter how far, which relates to the heart transplant patients with changed personalities, but I believe that to be a coincidence just like the patients who thought they were having some sort of soul assimilation with the previous heart owner, of whom Dr. Oz spoke about. Those patients turned out to be wrong most of the time. The mental trauma of having another person's heart is probably the cause of that.
 

Ethical Transplant Practices

The first chapter of our assigned reading was basically all about when a person is pronounced dead. Is it when the heart stops beating? How about when you are brain dead? As of now, by law, a person is pronounced dead when they are brain dead. Even though someone could be brain dead it does not necessarily mean that every bodily function stops as well. We open this chapter with a description of a woman who was brain dead, yet there were doctors flying in from all over the country to take her heart, liver and kidneys in order to save another human being.
Brain dead is defined as "the irreversible end of all brain activity..." (Wikipedia). Basically, the human will have no recovery. When I first read this chapter, it was a little unsettling to me knowing that they were cutting and tearing apart a woman who still had a beating heart and fully functioning organs; however, after reading the definition of what it means to be brain dead, I think that it made the surgery easier to deal with especially because her parts were going to save another humans life. It was her choice to become an organ donor, so this should have been expected. This does however raise the question of who and what draws the line between life and death.

In the next chapter of the assigned reading, the chapter was about human head transplants! When I first started to read that doctors have gotten decapitated human heads to open their eyelids I was very freaked out. I think this type of surgery would never ever become a reality just because of the fact of: 1. the difficulty of getting a readily human head to the sight of a decapitation, and 2. after the procedure, the family and friends of whose head was decapitated will have a whole new face!!! (freaky). I do think this practice is more of an exploration and a "do we think we can do it" type of experiment. While I was reading through this chapter it reminded me of when we read Frankenstein and how he, in a sense, became godlike because he created a human (monster in his eyes) out of nonliving parts. Because human head transplants and getting a decapitated head to opens its eyes are so unnatural, just like Frankenstein's creation, it makes the doctors performing the procedures sort of like a Frankenstein. If a transplant did happen, the doctor would probably see it as a monster instead of something beautiful, just like Frankenstein's reaction.

Stiff - Chapters 8 & 9

One of the most interesting parts of this section of reading was towards the end of Chapter 8, when Roach brings up the issue of heart transplant patients being able to sense another being or personality traits of another being in the heart that they received. At first I thought that it would be really intriguing if this actually happened, but the more I read, the more ridiculous it sounded. It seemed that the people who undergo these situations experience a self-fulling prophecy. By that I mean that they are trying so hard to feel someone else residing in their transplanted heart, that they make up these feeling. They don't make them up consciously, but subconsciously they see signs that are not actually there just because they are hoping to see them so badly. This was made clear with the case of the transplant patient who was convinced that his heart came from a young black women, when actually it came from a white male. He made up this whole story behind where his heart came from that turned out to be totally false. It's possible that my hypothesis is completely off and that people sometimes do share their transplanted heart with the soul of the previous owner, but I highly doubt it.

Solely Soulless: The Heart or the Head?

How to know if you're dead addresses many terrifying thought.  For those you that will be donating their organs to help others after they pass away, how do you know that you will actually be dead?  I'm not sure how Roach could watch the surgeon cut out a beating heart!  Yes, the patient was brain dead, but they still referred to the patient, as a breathing living patient who needed to be cared for!  If we have the technology to keep one's body alive even when they are "dead," where does the line get drawn?  As Roach refers to us "law-types" not trusting the medical types to get it right, I find it hard to believe that desperate people won't try to inch the line.  What about people in coma or in a persistent vegetative state?  Those in a vegetative state have suffered sever damage to their cortex and might even be non-functional.  Are they brain-dead?  Some people in these vegetative states, like Terri Schiavo, are taken off life support and left to die.  Could people petition to take patient's with disorder of consciousness organs?  Roach almost demonizes family members who chose not to donate organs to others in need.  If my mom was in a coma, I wouldn't be able to say, alright her life is done, cut her up and give her to others because her heart was still beating.  And even if my mom was already "dead" but her body was still alive, I'd still have a hard time with it.  If I could feel the warmth of her body and see her pulse, I couldn't agree to donation.  Why?  Because keeping a body alive is HUMANIZING a cadaver, it's humanizing the dead.  The emotional tow would be too great for me, allowing surgeons to take her heart while it is still beating.

      As for head/body transplants, that's too wack-a-doodle for me to get behind.  If Dr. White did a transplant operation on a human, it'd be too frankenstein for me.  An organ is one thing, but the whole body has a story.  I can't imagine waking up with my head on a different body.  Having a scar on my left knee and not knowing the story behind it.  I would want to know the story behind my donor's body, and like Roach reported in the book - would I become more like that person subconsciously?  Anyways, like I said, it's too frankenstein for me.  I had a hard time reading the puppy and monkey transplants because I was imagining freakish monsters as a product.  That is mad science.  That is Mickey Mouse watching the Mad Scientist's plan to put Pluto's head on a chicken's body.

- Kristyna

Stiff

Along with what Alex posted earlier today I also found the chapter about testing cars to be the most interesting. On commercials we always see cars being tested with blow up humans in the front seats. Never would I have ever imagined that large car companies actually used human bodies to test cars but they would give the most accurate information on how the body would react in a crash and the damage it would cause. One question that is obvious throughout the whole book is how do all these people deal with being around dead bodies. I honestly do not think I would be able to do it. I realize they do try and dehumanize them and sometimes try and act as though it is a wax body but at the same time these were all once living, breathing humans. They each had families, and friends, and a job, and an impact in this world. If I had to be around those bodies all day I would wonder their life stories. I would wonder who their loved ones were and where they came from. I personally do not think I would be able to dehumanize them.

Stiff

Mary Roach has created a parallel in the lives of the cadavers. She sheds light on the doctors feelings and moral obligations for the cadavers, while subtly drawing a line between medical madmen and furthering scientific studies. In chapters 4 and 5, the use of cadavers seem to be for advancing scientific discoveries; rather then mutilating the donor. In chapter 4 they used full cadavers to determine how much force a human shoulder can handle during an automobile accident. The handlers of the cadaver treat the deceased with the utmost respect, covering their faces and not contributing any snide remarks during the scientific experiment; an experiment that will further human safety in automobiles and have an impact in the manufacturing industry. In chapter 5 the research on the cadavers draws upon the conclusions of deadly events. Such events like plane crashes, where the only evidence can potentially be the floating cadavers, allowing investigators to pinpoint the reasons for the crash by using the cadavers wounds as evidence. Shanahan explains to Mary how he works with the autopsies and comes to the conclusion of how the accident happen, giving the families closure with the passing of their love ones. Providing a moral obligation when working with the deceased.

Chapters 6 and 7 bring forward experimentation that can be considered unnecessary experiments or even mad experiments. In Chapter 6 the researchers and scientists test on individual body parts, developing weapons and ammunition while also researching the effects of stopping power. This is a mad experiment because it is not furthering the human race but actually promoting the extermination of population through wars. This is unnecessary research for cadavers because it is not furthering any scientific advancements. In chapter 7 doctor Barbet can be considered a medical madman through his obsession of proving the Shroud of Turin. He goes through cadaver arms like candy, trying to decipher the exact location a nail will need to be placed during a crucifixion. A mind in relation to Frankenstein, with no respect for the deceased body.

Value and Ownership of your very own Cadaver

 It seems to me that cadavers are a useful tool in most sciences that deal even remotely with biology. In some tests, it would be arguable that cadavers are more useful than a computer simulation would be. Saving lives and, if putting a monetary value to a human life, saving money. Roach says “As calculated by the Urban Institute in 1991, [a life is] worth $2.7 million,” (126). Some people in life may not even earn $2.7 million through honest labor. It is hilarious to me that according to this calculation, these aforementioned people are worth more dead than alive. Burke and Hare thought the same thing. Although these cadavers (at least I assume) were given away in accordance with the previous tenant's free will, and although corpses are not snatched to be sold by unscrupulous characters as they were over a hundred years ago, there is still a monetary and calculable value associated with a dead body despite efforts to prevent there being one. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

A common theme of questions Ms. Roach asks her interviewees is along the lines of “How do you deal with dealing with dead bodies all day?”. And a common theme of answers is along the lines of “Dehumanization”. It seems a necessary thing to do to get through the day and, in most cases, do work for the apparent good of mankind and not simply for some morbid fascination. So is dehumanization of a corpse really a morally reprehensible ethical choice in these fields of study? Is a corpse at least part of a person and thus deserve the appropriate respect? A yes answer to the previous questions implies that someone's humanity and “person-ness” exists after they die in some part, however small, through their physical body. Even in death you have some ownership of your body and a say in what happens to it. A no answer implies the opposite. Ownership of your body is arbitrary when you are not alive to exercise it. How can you dehumanize something that is no longer human, but a shadow of what once was?

I found the human crash test dummies chapter to be interesting. I honestly never thought that the auto industry would use real human parts to test their cars, I always assumed that they used dummies. I think that it makes more sense for them to use real people because it would have a more correct outcome. I think that more people should donate their bodies to science, it can have great results. I have no use for my body once I am deceased so I think that I will donate my body to science.

NIP/ TUCk analysis Jon Kamman

The selections we watched from Nip/Tuck were especially appealing in terms of the medical madmen mindset. The interviews or consults Dr. Macnamara and Dr. Troy held were highly superficial and exposed their interest in preserving human beauty. The certain section where Dr. Troy mercilessly critiqued the woman's appearance exposed how this mindset permeates through their lives. The pursuit of perfection drives these men to suggest painful, expensive and unnecessary surgeries.

Patients that are looking towards these routes often are plagued by ideals described by the media. Although these surgeries often involve highly invasive methods, plastic surgeons have made their performance common place. The fact that insurance companies neglect to pay for their surgeries suggest the brutal nature of these acts. Even though these surgeries lack monetary support from industries, their prevalence continues to grow year after year due to the acceptance of the practice of these medical madmen.

Stiff

The book provides a rather interesting view on what happens to our bodies after we donate them to science.  I was under the impression that when a body is donated to science that every part is put to the best use possible, medically speaking.  It was a little bit shocking to see that parts of the body went to allowing doctors to practice cosmetic procedures.  In a way it kind of seems like a waste, even if it's a part that someone might not need.

Additionally, I thought the "body farm" was rather interesting concept.  Even if it sounds a little bit like a waste of bodies that could otherwise be put to good use, I find that they study it kind of interesting.  I feel as if the data that can be produced is useful in this case, though, because it can help in solving crimes.

Also, it's kind of funny how the book really attempts to enforce that a corpse no longer belongs to someone, it is just a giant bag of water.

In the book I feel as if this is sort of the "good portrayal" of the medical madman.  The doctors in this book are mostly trying to do good for society with the bodies, and they try to put everything to good use.

Sean

Stiff Intro, Chapter 1, Chapter 3

           In the introduction, the author gives a different approach on ways to view death. She talks about how death should mean something, not just a body laying horizontal for all to stare at. Death is described as meaning something. The use of corpses should be for more than just a display in a casket. They can use them for experiments and further research on the human body. I enjoyed the last sentence in the introduction on page 11 where she says, "Death. It doesn't have to be boring." The author gives a different mood on thinking about death. Usually death is associated with sad feelings and remorse. She wants death to be about remembering all of the good things that the individual did in their lifetime and continue to celebrate it. In chapter one, the topic of discussion is the human head. The way the author talks about the head in great details, makes it seem like there's no restrictions in her writing. She isn't afraid to say what she is thinking or how she feels. I appreciate that in an author. It's a different approach to what could be a pretty plain subject.


Abigail Martin

Stiff

One of the things that I noted while reading this section was that the author put a large emphasis on how the doctors "objectify" the corpses that they work on.  I first did not really think about it when I first came across it in the text and continued reading.  However, after I noticed it several times, I started to think about it more.  I came to the conclusion that it must be one of the main ways that people (specifically doctors) are able to perform surgeries on people.  It must be a coping mechanism to prevent the thoughts that they could be causing serious pain for their patient.  It then reminded me of how as a child, my mom had worked at a funeral home as a receptionist, and would tell me stories of when she worked there.  She always referred to bodies that were brought in as "guests," and during the embalming process thought of them as wax.  I believe that she did this out of respect and to help cope with having to deal with death every day.  Thinking back to the overall theme of this course (the medical madmen), I thought about how this section connected back.  I realized that this coping mechanism might be how the madmen (Nazi doctors, etc.) are able to perform such horrific acts.  Maybe these doctors objectified their patients so much, that they lost sight of the fact that their patients are people too.
Gabe McGiveron

House the Medical Madman

            The episode of House that we viewed in class demonstrated Dr. House under the influence of methadone and a medical case about a child with genetic mosaicism. I wasn’t surprised when Dr. House was recognized for taking the medicine due his atypical personality during the day. House was acting as a medical madman due to being under the influence of strong medication when treating a patient. This affected his better judgment and nearly resulted in the death of the patient. To me it seems immoral to deal with someone’s life knowing that you are not working to your full potential. Even though Dr. House does not compare to the other madmen that we have studied, such as Burke and Hare, his actions are considered inconsiderate and dangerous in the modern medical world.

            The child in the episode generates other questions concerning societies ideology on gender. The lecture in class touched on the subject that most people believe that being male or female is clear at birth. We were taught that many people are diagnosed with the same issue as the child in the episode. Biologically, the determination of being male or female is very complicated. The question raised was how should one deal with the situation? I thought that it was interesting that some leave the child surgically untouched at birth and wait for a time later in their life to make the final decision of which gender they would like to select. House was displayed as a rude character in the scene where he talked to the parents about treating their son falsely. He explains that even though he is seen as a “freak of nature,” he needed to be treated for dehydration, not for something that makes him a freak. 

Morbidity and the Loss of Humanity in Death (Roach Reading#1)

In the introduction of Mary Roach's Stiff, she has taken the time to detail her own opinion on biological existence after death.  I must say that I share a common thought with her; I almost fail to understand why a person would ask to simply be buried or cremated.  Why not become nutrients for a tree, or dedicate yourself to some piece of immortality; to improve the lives of people who go on living?  The dissection or operation on my own deceased body would provide practice for future surgeons, and researchers would ascertain new information.  Or perhaps I could be of use to someone who needs some kind of transplant. If I died suddenly, I can't think of anything I would rather be used for.

All of this said, I have attended numerous funerals within the confines of my traditional family, and only one of my family members opted for any of the alternatives to a burial or cremation. Honestly, that was a decision my mother had to make for her brother.  He had not written a will, but even I know that donating whatever was usable after his trauma is something he would have wanted.  It's true, as Roach puts, that the things that cause the most pain after someone is gone has less to do with their body, and more to do with who they are. 

The first chapter of the novel is spent in a practice anatomy lab for plastic surgeons.  I'll admit, right now, that this is not something I would want to leave my body to. Roach also explains that skin that is not used for grafts may sometimes be used for operations involving the lengthening of a penis.  She may not be as explicit as I am, but that is the correct anatomical term.  It would be excellent if we could make a distinction between "science" and "cosmetic purposes" when donating our bodies.  A large part of the chapter is spent on dehumanizing the cadaver pieces.  It is difficult, even for the surgeons, to cut into a human face, to see a severed head, and to touch a human hand without some feeling.  Roach looks at the faces as Halloween masks, and the lab director thinks of them as wax.  When their humanity is gone, learning can take place.  Each person is essentially a functioning machine, running like clockwork (literally, if you understand the circadian rhythm) until something goes wrong, wears out, or becomes imbalanced.  The number of processes that occur at any one time in the human body is astounding; it's a veritable miracle that it exists in its own complexity. Finally, what a task it would be, to be trusted to fix the processes that go awry.

Truthfully, I believe that Roach exhibits a small amount of disrespect for the people (in chapter 1 and 3) that perform the tasks of dissection, research, and embalming of the deceased. It's clear enough that she respects the cadavers themselves, but I really think that the majority of surgeons who practice this, researchers, and embalmers, are due respect.  For most, and definitely the majority of the population in general, these jobs are difficult to perform.  However, people who are removed from the scenario demand that these studies and actions be taken.  Loved ones would like a visitation, or want their lost friend to be preserved.  When undergoing surgery, patients demand experienced surgeons (ideally).  Police forces would like new ways to uncover clues in murder scenarios; researchers yearn to understand the intricacies of human decomposition.  True, the methods to complete these objectives are ugly and derisive.  I found many parts of these excerpts horrifying (especially the nose-jaw sewing of the embalming process). But that does not negate the demand for such practices. 

House

When watching house in class today i couldn't help but think how do transgender, bisexuals, lesbians, or gay individuals live with all of the judging. I don't understand why it is not a social norm or acceptable to have different sexual opinions. people should accept what has been put onto this earth because you can not change someones internal drive. in the episode all the parents cared about was their son not knowing the truth about his past. they wanted him to live a "normal" life. there is no definition for normal that would explain the human race. no one is normal. being in that teenagers position would be awful. not knowing why you have had these mixed emotions and feelings for so long and then having the people you thought you could trust tell you they've been lying to you for years is tough. the doctors in this episode i thought were a little exaggerated. i do not think any doctor would act like House does. He is rude but very intelligent. usually doctors would not call their patients parents stupid and overprotective. the child's parents did not refute or fight back when this was said because they could have looked at him as a godly figure for diagnosing their son and treating him. the doctor's best interest is to diagnose the child and treat him or her with whatever is wrong.

I thought this was interesting - Research Fraud

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-goldacre/prescription-drugs_b_3018272.html

I thought this was interesting. He talks about how unflattering data doesn't get published, when it could provide an warning signs for future prescription drugs. When ignored it causes people to be misled with not enough information about what they are putting in their bodies which in some cases caused death.
This is research fraud, because they only give out the information that they want us to know - the results that only gave the results that they wanted.
Who gains from this? Are they only motivated by accolades and money? Do they not care about the people who will take their medication?

Cloning

Cloning is the idea of replicating the DNA of a living organism which results in an exact duplicate. The first successful cloning resulted in Dolly the now famous sheep who lived until age six.
Today some animals, particularly dogs are being cloned by their owner to keep a part of them alive. In most scientific circles the ambition of cloning a human being is frowned upon(my physiology professor said so), mostly because there is nothing new to gain from a clone of a human being, but possibly more trouble. Because clones have no other similarities passed their identical genetic makeup, it is absurd to argue that clones can fulfill the gap left by the original. Since clones will have different behaviors and social attitudes, they will most simply cause overpopulation.  As a result human clones have no basis.
Some might argue that they could be used to harvest organs for their owners, the trouble with this line of thought is that clones are known to live for a very short period of time about six years and then they expire. It is still unknown why they do so.
Therefore human cloning is simply bad.
This is not to say cloning is completely useless. It currently finds it's use in the food industry where  original animals are cloned and bred, then sent out to market. This practice has placed the food industry at an advantage, because they have more options and possibly cost effective (long term) ways of producing their goods.
Keep in mind that cloned animals differ in physical and physiological characteristics from their non-cloned counter-parts, because their DNA is modified during the cloning process causing some genes to be affected. This begs the question of how healthy these are for our consumption in the long term, because gene modification sometimes leads to unfortunate circumstances. Are we simply paving the way for hereditary diseases that can cross over from animals to humans and feeding into the jaws of massive over consumption and increase obesity and diseases, because the more food is available the more people will consume.

Cloning

"Cloning

A clone is commonly defined as a ?cell that is genetically identical to the unit from which it was derived?. This definition explains that a clone is simply a copy of another human being or species DNA. There is a lot of controversy when discussing the idea of cloning living organisms, especially people, because no one knows exactly where to draw the line between what is socially acceptable and what is considered to have gone too far.

In some cases, cloning could be used as a positive practice. For example, the video clip we watched about the mother who physically could not reproduce looked into cloning as a solution to have a child of her own that shared her DNA. In cases where a family cannot reproduce for themselves, cloning would be a way to allow these families to fill the missing gaps and have children that are ?theirs?.

However, the negatives significantly outweigh the positives of cloning in my eyes. Since this process is extremely out of the ordinary, most people have weird and oftentimes emotional reactions to the idea of cloning another human being.  Instead of creating a child the traditional way, with a man and woman, the practice of cloning uses a cell from a human being and creates a baby this way.  Straying from how babies have always been made can be frightening to many people. Another thought that was brought up is the aspect of the clones individuality. Instead of being a unique human, cloning destroys ones individuality and sense of self. The idea that this procedure isn?t guaranteed to work 100% also leads skeptics to believe cloning humans is unethical."


Emily Kiger

(posted by Dr. Renzi on her behalf)

Creating the Perfect You

In the first scene that was watched, I was surprised to see how the woman who had so much self confidence in herself was told that she wasn't beautiful by the guy and was shown she started to believe him. All he did was show her what he thought what the perfect 10 was, it is amazing how the opinion of one person can change someones mind about themselves. In the second scene, the second woman was crazy and she had medication to help her but she wasn't taking it and because of this she was denied the surgery. I agree with the decision that was made because there was no way of knowing that she would be happy after it from all the pictures on the wall. How were they suppose to know that once they did surgery that she would she be happy with the way she looked and not say "Oh, now i want to look like this person."  In the third scene, I was surprised in the way the doctors acted to the trans-gender man. The way they were treated was bad, because I believe that they shouldn't be judged or treated differently than normal people and that is what really bothered me in these scenes. In the final clip that was watched, I just think that it is silly to try and make a change in someone just because of race.

what it takes to achieve "happiness"; Creating Beauty excerpt

 The reading talks about how these patients believe that self-love and happiness can only be created through physical appearance. If they like the way they look, then they will feel good because in at least one way they are "perfect". In the excerpt, they state that surgeons "perform operations designed to cure the unhappiness." These patients are willing to put everything in the hands of the surgeons and believe that this will make them better people. This is a real indication of how much pressure is put on physical appearances in our society. The section is titled, A Beautiful Body is a Happy Mind; which also plays into the idea that to be happy you must look perfect.

As for the doctors that perform the operations, they say that they receive pleasure from helping patients. They go as far as to describe the surgeon as an artist and the patients' bodies as the artwork to be molded. This dehumanizes the patients by stripping away the person and replacing it with an object that can be formed and created.

Looking at the other works that we have read, this reading is a little different. In most of the other works, the doctors have performed experiments on unwilling patients for example, Dr. Knox. However, in this case. The doctors have full consent from the patients. This shows how the idea of medicine has changed. Surgery was only performed when absolutely needed, but now it is viewed as just a little thing.

Happiness is just a consult, loan, and a cut away!

According the the article from Creating Beauty to Cure the Soul, entitled A Beautiful Body Is a Happy Mind, it is posed to the reader that in western (or "modern") thought, happiness is not linked solely to our psychological well-being, but it is linked also to the way we view ourselves physically.

Yes this is true in the sense that most people in modern society, including myself on some occasions, seem to get down in the mouth about their physical appearance. In my view, however, there is a circular link between our physical appearance and our psychological well-being. Let's take for example, myself. I am overweight, out of shape and don't necessarily like the way I look. This fact resonates in my mind which gets me down in the dumps. Which then causes me to overeat, which causes me to gain more weight, and on and on and on. According to this article, many in my position would go out and get a loan to go and get liposuction and a tummy-tuck or something asinine like that instead of putting in less money but more work to go and work out at a gym or something of the like, but I digress.

I found it interesting that in most cases, at least it seems to me, that people tend to get aesthetic surgery on things such as their breasts or their sexual organs. If we get right down to it, the majority people that can get aesthetic surgeries done are trying to make themselves more sexually appealing; there's no getting around this fact.

Am I saying not to do it? I don't have a simple answer for that. I honestly think it's a waste of money, and if you put yourself into debt doing it, don't come to me for any help. You didn't need the surgery anyway. That's my biggest issue with aesthetic surgeries. If you don't need it, don't get it. End of story.

Creating Beauty Selection

In Chapter 4 of Creating Beauty selection, individuals are seeking anesthetic surgery because they are unhappy with their physical appearance. These certain people have a vision of what they want to look like in their head, and they believe by going forth with these surgeries it will create happiness. While reading this section, a few main points/questions stood out to me.

Unlike many of the other stories, films, excerpts we have read/watched, these patients have full consent over the surgery. They reach out to the physician, explain what it is they do not like and want changed, and then the surgeon goes forth with the changes. Also, the surgeries being performed are not as severe or harming to these patients. Although many of them may not need the specific change, it is mild enough to where it could be performed without harm. The physician is not performing anything that the patient does not want.

One question that came to mind is why do people feel the need to change the body that they were given by god. God created everyone in their own unique way, so why change that. In my opinion, this world is way to judgmental, and everyone feels the need to impress everyone else. We as humans naturally care about what other people think, but why go to the extreme of having surgeries to make yourself look like someone you are not?


Marissa Hilliard

Aesthetic Surgery: redefining the self

In the selection from Creating Beauty to Cure the Soul, patients and surgeons use elective aesthetic surgical procedures to achieve "happiness."  The patients are unhappy with their physical selves in relation to the social constructs that define physical perfection.  They have adopted the idea that physical perfection is a projection of health and happiness.  They choose to surrender control of their physical selves to surgeons in the hope that they will find happiness by moving closer to societies definition of perfection.  In turn, the surgeons say that they achieve happiness by pleasing their patients.

This whole process falls into a grey area when the Hippocratic Oath is considered.  Surgeons are to do no harm and not perform un-necessary procedures.  This isn't a life or death procedure, but the mental welfare of some patients may be improved.  There are great risks taken in many of these procedures, and they are taken merely for "vanity."  The idea of aesthetic surgery pushes the limits of the Hippocratic Oath.

The procedures seem tame compared to much of what we have examined in the autopsies, Pox Parties, and many of our medical criminals papers.  There may be risk involved, but the surgeries are performed with the best intentions to help the patients.  Additionally, the patients are consenting to the procedures.  The intentions of both parties may seem superficial, but it has been suggested that attractive people are generally more successful in many aspects of life.  We are judged by our peers based on our physical appearance, and much of our definition of self is constructed communally.  It is in this perception that the surgeries may be to the benefit of the patients.  As long as all parties are willing and informed, I would argue that aesthetic surgery is in the best interest of patients and ethically permissible from the perspective of the surgeon.

Thanks,
Robert Hunter

Roueche Reading

Dr. Henkin was neither a mad doctor or a good doctor. He was honestly just trying to get a little research done on Mr. Coniglio. He maybe should of told him what he was doing but it would of affected the research if he did. The reason why I don't think this was much of a big deal was because he knew that by giving him placebo that it wouldn't hurt the patient much. He knew that it would only bring back some of the patients symptoms that he was experiencing before. Dr. Henkin is a fine doctor that took a little risk to see if his theory had been correct. How could you blame him as the last two guys ran away on him. All in all Henkin took a chance a discovered something great that will help the future society from this disease. And he did it without hurting or killing anyone!

medical mystery madmen

Here we had an amusing story. While the doctors who ended up treating Rudy had "experimented" on him there was no risk. The true madness of the story are the doctors that treated Rudy until he was found/recommended to the doctor at the NIH. He is repeatedly given pills and antibiotics with no apparent reasoning behind the medication. Even with the cold or flu or even hepatitis the antibiotics would be completely ineffective. Follow that with misdiagnosing a tumor by... pretending it was there? The absolute horror of this light-hearted tale is the malpractice leading to Rudy's productive treatment. Forget about the experimenting with a harmless metal supplement, are people misdiagnosed and mistreated like Rudy was before going to the NIH?

Rouche Selection

After reading this selection I find myself both admiring Doctors and questioning them.

Dr. Henkin knew fully well that Zinc, at the time, was an experimental drug. And yet, he gave them to his patients. Did he even tell them it was an experimental drug, and hadn't been cleared?? On top of that, I can't believe that he lost track of his patients. Shouldn't a doctor, administering experimental drugs to patients, at the very least keep track of them?

I am also impressed that he was able to come up with the idea in the first place. Low zinc. Rudy went to five or six doctors all assuming mental issues or even tumor. Yet, when Rudy went to see Dr. Henkin, he was able to be helped. 

I find it a little weird that Dr. Henkin would administer a placebo in the place of a pill he already knew had worked to help others. Rudy, not coming to Dr. Henkin when symptoms started to return, is understandable. Rudy didn't want to disappoint Dr. Henkin. 

However, when Rudy did tell Dr. Henkin the symptoms had returned, I found my self a little annoyed if not angry at Dr. Henkin's response. If a doctor ever laughed at me for telling him my symptoms I would be furious. 

Some questions I have about this passage include:

Why did the doctors Rudy saw in the beginning continually ask Rudy whether he liked his work or not?

Why would the doctors tell Rudy to operate if there wasn't a tumor? I feel like the first doctor assumed, and when the second doctor called the first, I feel like he was influenced and then assumed the same. Much like a placebo pill, I feel like one doctor hearing another doctors reasoning could influence the other. 

"Why not?" Wouldn't a doctor at N.I.H. question something a little more before prescribing it? I would hope a doctor I see never just asked himself, "Oh why not, let's see what happens." It's a little messed up if you ask me.

Another question I had was in regards to Dr. Henkin. It said on page 259 that he had an appointment held since July 1969. I find this to be extremely interesting because Rudy's symptoms began in July 1969. Coincidence?

The Medical Detectives

     I personally don't consider the doctor any of the doctors in this story to be medical madmen, especially Dr. Henkin. Rudy had a problem that wasn't caused by anyone in particular, all he did was seek help in finding a cure. After seeing a numerous amount of doctors, none of which knew what the problem was, Rudy was sent to Dr. Henkin who turned out to be a huge help. Rudy's case has become a bases for a series of experiments and questions. Though his case was not the first of its kind, he was the only one who was close enough for Dr. Henkin to keep track of. Dr. Henkin had given Rudy a placebo pill to confirm his hypothesis and to make sure that Rudy's problem wasn't psychosomatic. It turns out that many people have this problem which is caused by a number of different things. The double blinded and single blinded experiments both seem like good experiments to me. It didn't harm anyone in a sense of someone having a bad reaction. It isn't as extreme as the cases we've been reading about where the doctor is cutting off body parts of unwilling patients. The zinc treatments were really beneficial to the people in the study rather the had the disease or not. Though they didn't find all of the answers to the questions in this stories, it did get researchers thinking about ways to make sure that no one goes through life without the appropriate taste buds.

Idiopathic Hypogeusia: A Medical Mystery

In The Medical Detectives by Berton Roueche, many important questions are raised. First of all, why are these people suffering from these symptoms? In some cases, it seemed to have happened rapidly, while in others, it seemed to be gradual. Dr. Henkin says the symptoms are commonly associated with hepatitis, pregnancy, and the common cold. So why in some cases are they still there afterwards? Dr. Henkin tested with metals in one man, and he ended up giving him zinc pills; even though he wasn't sure it was going to work. It did however, and the man went on his way. The same symptoms were experienced by another man and Dr. Henkin gave him the same pills, and they worked on him as well. Then, when he met Rudy, he saw the same symptoms. This time though, he did more thorough tests on him. There was also an experiment done where some patients were given placebos and others were give the real pills. Not even the doctors were told which patients were given what. It turned out that some patients that were given placebos felt better, and some given the actual drug had no improvement. The doctors were shocked by these results, they were almost positive that the zinc pills would work for everyone. Finding out this new information, he did tests on Rudy to see if zinc was in fact in the saliva. He determined that it was, and that people who had less zinc in their taste buds usually had these symptoms. He gave Rudy the pills and after a while he was back to new. When he went back to Dr. Henkin for a follow up, the doctor gave him placebos, which he didn't know about. As Dr. Henkin expected, a few months later Rudy came back and said the symptoms came back; he knew then that the pills actually did work. This also brings up the fact of experimentation and the ethics behind it. The doctor knowingly gave Rudy placebos, thinking that his symptoms would reappear. Is this ok if it was for medical knowledge that could potentially benefit others? Is experimentation considered justifiable if these patients have no other options? These questions don't have easy answers.

Mad Doctors and The Debt

Mad Doctors have long held a fascination with most people. From their complex, often uncompromising natures to their ability to bend the rules for their personal gain, or risk everything anyone else would hold near in pursuit of some idea.
In the Debt,  Dr.  Dieter Vogel a Nazi Doctor referred to as the Surgeon of Birkenau set up a practice in Berlin after he escaped the war. He managed to eluded officials for years and to the casual observer seems like a poster child for rehabilitation, but his also all too ready to jump back on "the nazi bandwagon if it ever rolls into town".
As a result Dr. Vogel is a complex character, which makes it is easy and tempting to write him off as a psychopath. We often do this because we probably do not have an explanation as to how an intelligent, upstanding person could be capable of such atrocities, stooping down to such a low level. After all crime is usually associated and  reserved for the poverty stricken populous.
This shows how we have come to define people according to how much money they earn and their social standing - a belief propagated by the thought that if someone has money they are well adjusted and what more could they ever need from the world they are comfortable. And that criminal activities only exist among the poor. Mad doctors force us to reevaluate our beliefs about intelligence and good standing.
Knowledge is power and with that power comes a great responsibility to hold on to one's moral compass, so that the individual can remain grounded.  Once this moral compass is lost, the individual becomes drunk with power and since they have not only knowledge they now have the capacity to manipulate situations and people in their favor and for their own benefit, which is almost always catastrophic.

Medical Madmen Project

During my research, I stumbled upon interesting point of view, written by Dr. Adams as a foreword in "Doctors from Hell" by Vivien Spitz.In it,  Dr Adams stresses the importance of  having medical doctors and medical students read the book and any account of the atrocities committed by the Nazi doctors. This he hopes would help them see that the Nazi doctors where regular, respected people just like they are but became allowed themselves to be overtaken by power, recognition and prestige at the expense of the the individual patient for the so called greater good. That such an outlook lacks a moral compass, making it possible for any ordinary person to commit and justify their atrocities.
In his foreword, Dr. Adams stresses that this perspective is still prevalent today causing greater risk of repeating the same atrocities committed by the Nazi doctors.
This is because such a perspective transforms medicine from a profession that is entrusted with the welfare of the patient to a rat race for accomplishments at the expense of the patients. 
It is also important to note that many of the worst atrocities committed in human history, have been committed by intelligent, "well-adjusted", regular, "good" people, who for some reason almost always never mean any harm. They simply snapped and went crazy,  society  turns a blind eye. 
Society has a responsibility to hold people with knowledge to a higher standard of accountability. Maybe that way these individuals will not become dehumanized, drunk with power and could hold on to their moral compass. This way we could prevent atrocities from happening to innocent people - after all knowledge is power, and with power comes the responsibility to use it wisely.

Szymborska

The first thing I noticed about this Experiment poem, was how it portrayed happiness and sadness/anxiety all at the same time. To me, it was almost as if the feelings were bipolar, first they were up then they were down. Now not only are these feelings bipolar but its not even a human head- it’s a dogs head. She spoke about how if the dogs head were still to be attached it would have all of its senses back, as she gives examples on the mouth watering from bacon. Reading about how the head is just completely absent from the body made me feel slightly uncomfortable knowing that she was able to sit through and look at this dogs head with no problem. Then again, maybe she was reflecting on the dogs body connectedness, or in this case, the lack of. And how the brain cannot be switched because much of our experience in our thoughts relies on the body.

Szymborska

To me I felt like this poem went in a lot of different directions. The first being happiness. It talks about how the head was disconnected from the body and that it was happy and content because it didn’t know its situation. To me the person seems worried with what makes the dog happy. It is perfectly content but little does it know it no longer has a body. Is ignorance truly bliss? The person is frightened by what happiness is. Meaning is it better to be happy and ignorant or to have knowledge but be upset because of it? The dog is ignorant and happy but is it truly happy when it does not possess all the information?

Additionally, I thought that it may be talking about experiments and what we gain from them. Is happiness knowledge? Once we learn something are we still happy? What if what we gained no longer pleases us or upsets our outlook on life or some aspect of life? The dog with its narrow outlook is happy however if he turned around and realized he was no longer connected to a body that would probably change. I’m not exactly sure what this poem is trying to convey but to me they are questioning knowledge in relation to one’s happiness. The person is frightened after they think about happiness. They may have been evaluating things in their life where they thought they were happy but in essence really weren't  However, they may also be wondering about the cost of happiness. The experimenters may have been excited about their believed success in the experiment however, there is now a dog without a dog.

Emily Fenger

Szymborska Poem

I find this poem really off balance. It has a very happy sort of tone to it, but reading the actual words it becomes a little off putting. At first I though it was talking about a human and then it turned into talking about a dog. It makes me think of our class discussion about doctors performing autopsies to a room full of spectators while doing their research. I feel like that is very much the scene that is being played out, but with a morbid twist on it. I also think there is an underlying reference to the body and mind being two separate entities at time. The dog only has a head, yet it is still happy and finding joy in it's surroundings. Though the poem is disturbing and frankly morbid, it makes me think about finding happiness within my surroundings no matter my circumstance.

Happiness ? Szymborska Poem

This poem was rather confusing to me because I wasn't quite sure what the point was that the author was trying to get across to the readers. I also don't understand why the experiment was done or what they were trying to learn from it or why it was being shown to an audience for entertainment. 

The author seems to not show any real sympathy for the head considering he referred to the head as "it" rather than being given a name. As the poem read on he didn't seem phased by anything he was seeing until the very end when he expressed he was feeling frightened thinking about happiness. It states, "the head was happy," which I don't agree with. The head seemed content and unaware of what had happened to the rest of its body but that doesn?t show any sign of happiness. The head couldn't talk, and his tail (which could be an indicator of happiness/excitement) is missing. He responded with his natural senses to the surrounding environment but I believe happiness is something you acquire through living not being hooked to a machine and being put on display.

-Brittany Fegan

(posted by Dr. Renzi on her behalf)

Symbroska Poem

I'm a little confused by what might be happening within the poem.

I read it, as the point of view from a towns person waiting to watch an experiment preformed. I find it weird that the head, the main focus of the poem, is not the main part of the experiment.

The repetition of the word "it" rather than he or she shows the lack of humanity the test subject it shown. Not only that, but it is even stranger that the head was just cut off - there are no comments that would lead the reader to believe the author is apposed to this treatment. I find it hard to believe that there aren't any comments on the actual removal of the head from the body.

Again, the repetition of the word "it" shows distance. It doesn't make since not to call it a "he" or possibly a "she." It's one think if the gender is unknown, or maybe if the head was brought in alone and the person had not just been on unit in front of them. How is the detachment of the head so dehumanizing? A human head is a human head...

Why is it that when the author brings the readers attention to a dog, the word "dog" is actually used? Wouldn't it make more sense to say the "human" or even the "human head." Why is the human head within this experiment more a lab rat than an animal?

The final paragraph, which reads:
"I thought about happiness and was frightened.
For if that's all life is about,
the head
was happy."

I feel like the author is trying to say, a head is able to function and respond to the world around it. Life its self is a pool of interactions that function and respond to one another. The head is able to do so, therefore it must be happy. Its a scary thought that life, and everything that comes with it, in the end can seem so minute and meaningless.

Homo Sapiens 1900

The concept of Eugenics poses many moral and unethical issues. I see this movement as something more of a socialistic and humanistic movement. The idea of unwanted sterilization is something most were duped into believing was necessary for a better society. This whole movement brings back the concept of knowledge for the greater good but for whom. Many of these so called medical professions were more so doing it for personal gratification and knowledge was used for negative or wrong doing. This was a bad sales pitch that really went wrong. The so called Dr Hitler was simple attempting to eliminate the bad apples to do what he deemed was creating a better society based off of his authoritative role.

Homo Sapiens 1900

'There are times when saving a life is a greater crime than taking one.'  This quote near the beginning of the film, Homo Sapiens 1900, not only struck me as criminal, but it also seemed to excuse the bad medical practices that were occurring, specifically sterilization and the mass extermination movement to follow. This excuse was even validated as many government officials, doctors and even the general public agreed with the eugenics movement, that is, until Hitler took it too far during the Holocaust. Then, suddenly, the eugenics movement had opposition. As shown in the propaganda clip, Hitler’s Blood Tonic, the Americans can easily see past Hitler’s faulty logic and overzealous eugenic ideals. But why was this so hard to see before the Holocaust? Essentially the logic used to justify it was the same, and many, other than those who were being sterilized, thought eugenics was a perfectly sane idea as it corresponded with the populations racist ideals. The only difference, however, is eugenics wasn’t represented as comically as the propaganda clip, but rather shown as scientifically proven; therefore, the general population couldn’t see the ridiculousness of it.

Homo Sapiens

If Eugenics was possible/successful it would eliminate diversity and make everyone alike. If everyone was made equal physically and mentally then would society be able to improve itself? Eugenics is said to improve humanity by reducing crime and poverty. It would also destroy social classes. Would Eugenics really save humanity from degeneration?

Homo Sapiens 1900

Homo Sapiens 1900

There are few things I find interesting about this film and the whole eugenics movement. First, I think it’s very troubling how easy it was for the government to sterilize thousands of people, and this was in the not-so-distant past. This was during the time period where many different groups of people were fighting for equal rights, yet this goes on and no one seems to mind. I think it says a lot about our society that we were so willing to go to such extremes to prevent the birth of people who might be “undesirable”. It makes me wonder, who decided what and who was “undesirable”. I think this is very sinister plan, especially since according to the movie; a few geneticists came forward saying, “Eugenics is unscientific and backwards”. Luckily, in the U.S. this practice was stopped, but in Germany its not hard to see how this was a stepping stone to one of the greatest tragedies in history, the Holocaust.

Homo Sapiens 1900

Homo Sapiens 1900 demonstrated the prevalence of eugenics all over the world. It related eugenics to Dr. Frankenstein as they both use science to intervene in processes of nature. This implies that eugenics, like Dr. Frankenstein, takes part in a mad form of science.  Beginning to realize this, the American propaganda film displayed how the United States started to feel about eugenics.

Dr. Hitler’s Blood Tonic depicted Hitler as a scam artist. He was facetiously referred to as a doctor because he seemed to be trying to cure his country of deformity and illness by ridding it of what he would deem as imperfect people. The propaganda film also showed the destruction of a neighborhood consisting of people from various ethnic backgrounds. This provided imagery to the people watching the film of how horrific and destructive eugenics could be.

The idea of eugenics escalated, and Hitler’s Aryan race was soon formed. Hitler’s idealization of fitness and perfection put the lives of the imperfect at great risk.

-Elaina DiClemente

Hipocratic Oath

The Hipocratic Oath was an oath taken by those who practiced in the medical field. No one knows who wrote the original oath, but it dates back to the times of ancient Greece. Those who took the oath back in ancient Greece swore to the gods to hold by its requirements. There are several difference translations of this oath, but we only explored two of those translations and were clearly translated at different times. The oath seems to change its phrasing as society changes throughout the years. As a nursing student here at MSU I found both versions of the oath to be very interesting and noticed that some parts of the oath tied in to the HIPPA laws that all medical professionals have to swear by today.We were asked to study the different versions of the oath in depth and I noticed that they were basically the exact same text, but with slightly different phrasing (as stated earlier). In the second translation I felt that it was basically a summation of the first translation and was a little more simple. In the first translation it reads that "In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." The second translation makes no reference to this. I think that the second translation did not include a holiness aspect because as time has gone on society has in a sense lost touch with religion when it comes to medical practice and therefore was not needed in the second translation of the oath. I do not have evidence to support this, but I have felt that those in the field of natural sciences have generally had a lesser connection to religion than those of other professional practices. I hope this doesn't offend anyone and if you would be willing to write your opinion on this I would be happy to read it!

The second part of the page that we read discussed the Declaration of Geneva. I felt that both of these versions were an even greater summation of the Hippocratic oath and still the second version being more up-to-date and summed up than the first. One thing I noticed being different from the first version to the second is that the first version states that "My colleagues will be my brothers" whereas the second version states "My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters." I think that this is a great representation of the addition of women to the medical field over time and the changes made to include women as equals to men in this profession.

-Is the Decleration of Geneva different today as compared to the second version that we read?
-At what point did the Hippocratic Oath stop being sworn to the Greek Gods Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses?

-Corey Tynan