Response to Jim Crow Museum

I understand why some people were offended and put off by this museum. Jim Crow themed artifacts were very racist and relied heavily on stereotypes of African Americans. Many people bought them as forms of entertainment as well as for whatever the objects' function was. While these objects and artifacts are highly offensive I think that they are things to learn from. If you take the museum as any other, one that is showing pieces of history, I think that it is perfectly fine. If the museum was in some way promoting such ideals and objects then obviously that would not be alright. Strange as it sounds, many people don't even know that those types of objects even existed and that people actually used them in their homes. I think that the museum is a good way to show people this. It shows the way many people thought of African Americans for many years and even by some today. It is a good museum for teaching people about a part of history, as all should.

Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia

I just read this article about a new exhibit at Ferris State University in Michigan, and thought I would post the link so the class can take a look: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/morning-file/museum-displays-the-worst-of-jim-crow-632403/

After reading this, I started wondering, what would a museum with all the things we have discussed in class would look like? (outside of what is in the Mutter museum).

-Josh Steffen

sacrifice few to benefit the many

Jessica Haynes

Our debate in class on Thursday was very beneficial to class discussion.  The idea of the few being sacrificed to benefit the many has been a continuous theme in our classes.  To continue the discussion I think that it is not right to sacrifice the few.  We all have personal rights that should not be violated in anyway but it is a constant in our society.  I used the example about organ donors in class, to be an organ donor you have to give consent and that is something that will happen when you are dead.  In the case of Henrietta Lacks, she was not able to consent to the things that were done with her cells.  Today we have the IRB form in order to protect people but still, do we have more control over our body when we are dead compared to when we are alive?  I think that we should look at it like this, you go to a psychiatrist and there is an agreement of confidentiality, they won’t violate this or interfere unless the patient poses a threat to themselves or others.  In the case of our rights being violated with our bodies I think we always need to give consent of what happens.  In the extreme cases like a CDC quarantine to prevent the spreading of some sort of epidemic, I think we can look at it like this, they pose a threat to others so it is appropriate to quarantine them, but it should be done in a humane way. 

hope and artifice

The examples told in chapter 14 from Medical Apartheid along with all the other horror stories we have encountered over the semester have made me wonder - Is it better to not know these things, or deal with the reality? I decided to ask some of my friends what they thought about doctors in general and only received positive things. I know if I asked the same question to our class everyone would hesitate and tell me how they 'll never be able to look at their personal doctor the same way anymore. However, it is a good thing to question your doctor because they are too highly viewed for always telling the correct thing to do. 

Its fascinating to see the medical advancements humans are making each year including the examples of a machine heart and synthetic blood - scary but cool! What you never hear are the sacrifices that were made to get there. Its a shame that those who are being used tend to be underprivileged people, especially because they are paying for something they cannot afford.

Brian

Debate from class

I think that debate from class was interesting. Being on the chalkboard side I had a difficult time fully backing the idea that people should be sacrificed  for the many. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I think that sacrificing individual rights shouldn't be done, but at the same time progress needs to be made. Or even in the example John gave us, the CDC containing a town of people infected with SARS, would be beneficial to the public. If that wasn't done, who knows how many more people would have been infected. When it comes to the issue of cells and tissues, like Henrietta's case, I think that it leans more towards maintaining individual rights in my opinion. It seems like a violation to those rights to me when something of yours (cells, tissue, organs, etc.) is taken without your consent. Just because they don't plan on using what they took for research doesn't mean that they shouldn't tell you that it will be used. I think that they should get your consent. I understand the idea that once you leave the doctor's office you are in a sense "abandoning"  what you left behind and anyone is allowed to take it. It is the same thing with any garbage you put out, anyone can take it because you threw it away. I don't necessarily agree with this but that is how it is done.

Debate Last Class

I really liked the debate that we had last class, it was a great way to involve the entire class. I did notice however, how difficult it was for the chalkboard side to make their arguement. Many of the students said that they didn't agree with the the side they were arguing for. I feel like many of the students in our class agree that individuals rights are important, and that the few should not suffer for the benefit of the many. It seems almost like an obvious answer, right? No one should have to suffer for somebody else. But that is exactly what our country does, doesn't it? Not only in the medical field, but in other areas as well. For example, soldiers are supposed to put their lives on the line and fight for the freedom of others. Mothers are supposed to put their lives on the line to benefit their children. There are many examples of people who have sacrificed their lives for other individuals. But is this right? If a mother doesn't make sacrifices for her children she is viewed as a bad mother. I feel like our society needs to take a closer look at why we place such an emphasis on other people sacrificing their lives. And who are the ones that are being sacrificed.

Response to "Cake" Posts

I think this article that Jordan found is interesting, but I think Angela nailed it with what she said in her response. I agree that while this event was intended to create awareness about female circumcision, it has an inappropriateness about it as well. It seemed to me that the media saw this as a newsworthy story and photo opportunity, overshadowing the issue at hand, which was to bring attention to what happens to women in other parts of the world. As a public relations major, I have learned that if you are going to do something out of the ordinary (like this cake), you have to be careful about how the public is going to react, and have a plan ready if something goes wrong - it doesn't look like that was so in this case.

-Josh Steffen

Response to "A Village of Henriettas"

I believe that perhaps Deborah and the family expressed not being ready to see the cells and medical records because they were essentially left in the dark concerning medicine and science, the reality of her cells, and perhaps the concept of “immortal” cells in general. Furthermore, they may have felt that in seeing her cells they would ultimately be seeing a piece of Henrietta, and that seeing them may be like seeing Henrietta again. Another reason why the family may have expressed that they weren’t ready may be their faith. For science and Henrietta’s immortal cells challenge or disrupt their religious beliefs or prays. The Lacks were confronted by the fact that her cells being still alive may mean that Henrietta's spirit had been sent back to earth. Also, the Lacks may have been apprehensive in being involved with medicine, science, and a hospital due to the medical injustices against Henrietta and predominately black individuals. I can say personally I would feel rather uneasy if I were to possible see an “immortal” part of a lost loved one, especially something which was unethically obtained by the medical industry.

Angela B.

Response to "Vaginal Mutilation...In Cake Form!"

I am very offended and almost surprised that such an event occurred. I feel that there many issues surrounding the creation of a cake which was supposed to represent a black woman, yet was conveyed by an Afro-Se Afro-Swedish artist Makode Linde – who was blackfaced, let alone performing a clitoridectomy on the cake as an attempt to bring awareness to the global practice of female circumcision. This cake symbolizes the notion that genital mutilation is a “primitive” practice, which is more commonly performed by black individuals. The creation and actions of the individuals involved further supports the notion of an “us” vs. “them” mentality. For Westerners are depicted as having overcome inequality, as being more innovated, and having the authority to “help” the less unfortunate individuals affected by the practice of female circumcision. However, within western society genitalia mutilation occurs, yet is centered within a medical realm as a cosmetic-surgery procedure. Furthermore, the fact that this cake was presented during an event and did not create a sobering or awakening effect, but rather elicited a response of laughter and photo-taking, suggests that there exists a sort of entertaining element to the cake, just as freak shows and photos served previously in history. I don’t agree with the supporters of this event and act that this “artistic” attempt to address a global practice of female circumcision was simply that, a way of shedding light on an issue or sparking discussion surrounding the topic. Much rather, I feel that this was a racist and inappropriate way to addressing the practice of female circumcision. It only further instills the notion that this is an “others” problem, and negates to acknowledge larger socioeconomic, political and historical involvement.

Angela B.

Few for the Many?

Today in class, we had a very serious discussion on whether the few should be sacrificed for the many.  The class was divided into two groups.  Who who was for the majority and one who was for the minority.  I was placed on the majority side, which was a hard side to debate. 

I wanted to say that I do not agree the few being sacrificed for the many.  This is an unnecessary evil but, some people are sacrificed for the many.  Some not by choice. 

Under the Henrietta Lacks discussion, she did not have to be sacrificed for the many.  But if we did not have her cells, we would not be as advanced in the medical world as we are now.  If we did not have a lot of vaccinations we would not be as healthy as we are now.  I know many people are opposed to vaccines, but I know they have helped me in the long run. 

Leslie Walter

The Machine Age

For today's class we focused on chapter 14 in teh medical aparhied book. one of the questions asked in class today that i thought was very interesting was if we felt that giving consent and not being told everything about an experiment was worse or better then not giving consent at all and still haveing an experiment done to you. I feel like giving someone consent to examine you and not being told all the details about that experimentation is alot worse then not giving consent at all. while i still think that not giving consent and still having it be done to you is bad but giving someone consent is worse. the reason that i think this is because you are now allowing you to have someone cut you open or take anything out of your body and they will get away with it because you did consent. i feel like if doctors want something from your body they should have to disclose everything about what they are doing with it before someone consents to what they feel like is being done. there was also another question about using artificial blood. i think that unless it is an emergancy and someone needed blood right away that we should not be using artificial blood in people especially without their knowledge of this occuring because this is something that is still farily knew and we do not yet no the long term issues and complications that could occur from using this kind of blood.

Debate reflections

Today, Brian brought up the fact that this class has only highlighted the dark side of medicine and hasn't shown many positive benefits directly resulting experiments, if there are any.  Considering this lack of information to work with, did anyone feel the side defending sacrifice for society had the more difficult task?  This is something I overlooked.  Nonetheless, I hope those of you who would have preferred the other side learned something from being in a different pair of shoes.

Also, consider the fact that the idea of greater good or majority aren't just people living presently, but alludes to people living in the future.  The future won't necessary exist, but the present is a reality and there are real people who have to live with the consequences of medicine.

~ John

Vaginal Mutilation...In Cake Form!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/swedish-minister-of-culture-in-hot-water-for-racist-cake/2012/04/19/gIQA1gzHTT_blog.html

I don't really know what to say about this, but this is absolutely messed up.  Anyone else find this unbelievably shocking?

The Machine Age

While reading "Medical Apartheid," I've been very appalled by some of the things that doctors have done to unsuspecting patients withou their consent. However, I was shocked to find out in "The Machine Age" that these things were still going on in the past decade. The experiments with the artificial heart really blew me away because I somehow thought that it was nearly impossible for doctors to take advantage of their patients like that. I figured there were enough laws and regulations in place by now to prevent things like that from happening on such a large scale.

However, I feel like more and more people in class are gaining a growing distrust for the medical community and their own doctors. I don't think this is completely appropriate because the truth is, most doctors are not malicious and manipulative like the ones we've been reading about. I think the reason some of us have become so jaded is because we've only been focusing on the bad doctors. We should remember that there are still a lot of good ones out there who truly want to do everything they can to make their patients better and who would never take advantage of them.

Sarah Bradley

The MAchine Age

I was thoroughly disgusted while reading this chapter. I have lost an incredible amount of respect for those claiming to help improve and save the lives of others. I don't even understand how the makers of the artificial heart would think that the FDA would approve of them putting these artificial hearts into unconscious, healthy patients that didn't even need their heart replaced and on top of that, without them knowing. And to know that another doctor put his patients into a comma on purpose and then proceeded to sexual abuse the women he did this to. This chapter would make anybody think twice about going to see a doctor for surgery or any other serious problem and putting your life in their hands. Its just absurd to think about!

Erin Pattridge

Henrietta Part III

I really do think that people have a right to privacy and to know what is being done with all of their tissues. It shouldn't matter if the patient is having surgery to remove an organ or just having their blood drawn. It is still part of their body. Yes, they knowingly gave it up and assumed that these tissues and blood wold be disposed of after they were irrelevant to the patient's diagnosis. I think if researchers plan to use any part of a patient, they need to inform the patient of what more is to be done with their tissues and more importantly, researchers need to take every measure to make sure that these patients understand exactly whats happening. That was part of the problem with Henrietta's family. When her husband and children inquired about her records and cells, they were not able to understand what was happening and what was being done.

Erin Pattridge

Discussion from 4/17/12

During this class we discussed Part 3 of the Henrietta Lacks book.  In this discussion we talked about how Henrietta should be remembered and if her family should be compensated and if so how.

This discussion got pretty heated and some people thought that her family should be given health care and that brings the questions of should the United States have universal health care.  We also talked in class about how this happened to a lot of other people.  It Brings up the issue that the other family's should be compensated. 

Personally, I think Henrietta's family should be compensated for the selling of her cells and they should be given a chunck of the profits since her cells are still alive today.  This would bother me if I was her family.  I would ask to have the money adjusted for today's economy and be compensated that way. 

Leslie Walter

Immortal Cells

For today's class we talked about the third part of the Henrietta Lacks book. This part of the book kind of made me very angery with the way that the family was being treated with people acting like they wanted to help but they were really looking out for themselves. It made me even more mad when their cousin also was trying to use them to get money and information about their mother. This is all relevant in today's world because people still do this today. People who are not as well off as other people will get used by them in order to better themselves and the people on teh bottom will be left no better off then they were in the beginning. I think that major concern in this part of the book dealt with the fact of who the cells belonged to. while the courts made a ruling that doctors can keep any part of you that was left behind i think that this is wrong. if a doctor or a scientist wants to use a part of you whether you are dead or alive to consuct research then they should have to get permission from you if you are alive or from you family members if you are dead. i also feel like the Lacks family deserved better treatment then they did considering noone was ever asked if they can have the cells. when it comes to using people's cells the researchers should have to disclose everything that they want to do with them and not just tell people what they want to hear to get them to cooperate. i feel like this may still happen today with doctors that are unethical but i feel like with their being laws about having consent forms it is occuring less and less. in a way Henrietta Lacks paved the way to a more ethical medical feild and without her or her kids we wouldnt be where we are today medically.

Henrietta Lacks: Washington's Medical Apartheid vs. Skloot

As I was reading the chapter in Medical Apartheid where Washington mentions Lacks, I was surprised she only really talked about her in five sentences - I thought to myself, that's it? I feel as though there could have been an entire section in that chapter devoted to Henrietta alone. This makes me appreciate Skloot's book on Lacks even more - what happened to Henrietta is a story that needs to be told, and luckily Skloot was compelled enough to write a book so other people could learn about it after she had been so fascinated herself. I wish Washington had spent more time discussing Lacks in her book so we could really see the differences between how the two authors think about this controversial topic.

- Josh Steffen

The new fingerprint

DNA is the latest tool used to convict or free the accused but this is just a tool and if improperly used it is less than worthless.  I found the authors naiveté about the acceptance of this process to be amusing, apparently she never read the articles that appeared when the developers of fingerprinting were trying to get this process accepted by law enforcement and the courts. 

Joyce Abbott

Compensation?

One of the things we brought up in our discussion during class was should Johns Hopkins give some sort of compensation to the Lacks family for what happened to Henrietta. The entire time the only thing I could think about was how that hospital was full of selfless jerks that couldn't take a small portion of the millions they make each year to donate to the family. But what I didn't think about was - could they even if they wanted too? In Skloots book and interview she says that the taking of cells for biopsy was a common thing that didn't need consent, so would they feel obligated to give everyone else money too? Im sure by not donating money they are avoiding the negative attention and poor image of having "immoral doctors" working at Johns Hopkins Hospital today- which I should note is one of the best hospitals in the country.

Brian G 

Henrietta Lacks

When reading the Immortally section of the Henrietta Lacks book, I kept wondering if Deborah finding out about her mother and sister was actually beneficial to her, and if it in some way gave Deborah piece. As we can see in the book, the more Deborah found out about her mother and her sister, the more it took a physical toll on her. Though Deborah was curious about what happened to her mother and her sister, maybe ignorance is bliss, and she would have been better off not knowing. Could finding out about what happened to her family members only effect Deborah in a negative way? Also Deborah never got to see the publication of the book, and how well it succeeded. It might have helped bring Deborah piece of mind knowing that the story about her mother was finally out in the public. However, in the book it stated that Deborah had passed away with a smile on her face. I was wondering what other people thought of this. Did you think finding out about her family truly brought Deborah piece?

HeLa 3

I was worried when we were assigned this book. Some of the medical articles that we have been reading take as long as a book to read, so when I saw that we only had three class days to read Skloot’s book, I wasn’t lacking any anxiety. But since Skloot made her book a story, it went by very quick. Not only was skloot’s book a quick read, it was accessible. In Rebecca’s acknowledgments, she mentions an individual named Lee that helped her to “care deeply” about story structure (340).  I think anyone else that found this read understandable, and hard to put down, owes some thanks to Lee. I also like how Skloot leaves any personal bias out of it. It is hard to determine where Skloot stands on the issue of if a patient has a right to their tissues or specimens taken from their bodies. It is also difficult to determine if Skloot thinks a patient should receive any profits made from their contributions to science. I have not read Washington’s chapter on HeLa, but I can already guess that it’s very biased. I imagine Washington thinks the Lacks were wronged and deserve compensation more than anything else. If I were to read a biology book and it mentioned Henrietta Lacks or the HeLa cell line, I would probably forget the name and cell line as soon as I set the book down. But after reading Skloot’s interpretation, I doubt I will ever forget who Henrietta Lacks was and her contribution to Science. I am comfortable in my belief that that’s what Rebecca Skloot set out to do. Skloot’s book should be a model for any medical historian. Any medical topic can be tough to digest, as mentioned some of the articles we read for class were brutal. Some were long and/or complex and; therefore, inaccessible. Other articles and Skloot’s book differed; they offered a story and intertwined it with science and medicine. In return, I walked away with not only knowledge, but a meaning behind that knowledge.

Domalski

A Village of Henriettas

In Chapter 29, a couple things that Henrietta's daughter Deborah said in the book have stuck out for me. She says, “I do want to go see them cells, but I’m not ready yet.” Also, when Skloot goes for Henrietta's medical records Deborah says, “We ain’t ready for that!" What do you think is the significance or meaning behind what Deborah is saying? Why do you think she wasn't ready?

- Josh Steffen

The root of all evil.

Money in and of itself does not corrupt people.  It is the context of economic system in which money is scarce and hence hoarded at increasingly socially devastating costs.

I was intrigued to witness some classmates bringing up economics today and how corporations(including hospitals, drug companies, and food "manufacturers") owe profit to their shareholders before owing quality and safety to their customers.   Large corporations are always calculating "risk assessments" to see whether it would cost more to protect their customers/consumers up front or if the cost would be greater in legal defenses or settlements.  So, unfortunately it is in the best interest of the medical community to keep people sick or even make them sick so patients keep coming back for more and paying their dues.  Most of this may not even be on purpose, but rather the fact the that doctors are so crunched for time that they rarely question the standard treatments taken for granted or aren't up-to-date with studies surrounding new "medicines" drug companies target at them.

It is important to understand that the way these corporations practice business is not conspiratorial in any sense.  They're not inherently evil and out to get you, but rather they are perpetuating a tendency which is determined by the pressure of the economic system and psychological/cultural values rewarded by the system.

If you want to begin understanding economics as the cause of social injustice and inhumane behavior please set aside 5 hours this weekend and watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=player_embedded

~ John

What does Wonder Woman deserve?

 Compensation- The act of compensating or the state of being compensated. What should Henrietta's  family receive for their mothers stolen cells? I don't know,but i think somehow they should be given peace. Deborah said that she never forgave her father for not taking care of her mother, for putting her in a unmarked grave. I believe that the hospital should give Henrietta a proper place to rest. I think it would make Henrietta's and Deborah's souls happy if they at least do that. I do not know if there should be a museum dedicated for her or a free women clinic in her honor. If we honor Mrs.Lacks do we as a society have to honor every woman who has come before and every women who has donated after? Where do we draw the line? I Wonder?
-Sarah Fiorella 

A Christmas Carol - Bad Karma

I really thought it was interesting what Joyce was saying about Henrietta karma. While reading the book I could the author did a nice job at incorporating Henrietta's soul in the book. Even thought the book was to teach us about the women how gave us so much,I think by adding personal parts about how her soul was still looking out for her cells made the point even clearer. I think Henrietta's story a story we can all learn from. I think than its more than just telling a story about a African American women being taken advantage of by her husband, and doctors. I think it is a lesson that we should all take with us about how not to become a victim in your life or with medical advice. I know there was no other option for Henrietta but, I think because of her there became more options. She was the victim who is saving other victims.... The World.
-Sarah Fiorella

Bad karma

The book about Henrietta Lacks certainly shows what can happen when people do not follow good sense.  I was constantly amazed by the lack of good judgment shown by the various people in this book: the grandfather allowing his grandchildren to all sleep in the same room, the women in Lacks town who did not intercede and advise Henrietta when she was young, preacher for marrying first cousins, the list seems endless.  Talk about having bad karma.  

Joyce Abbott

HeLa 2

     I have been reading some peoples blogs about Rebecca Skloot’s book. I am finding that many are appalled that the doctor’s took advantage of Henrietta Lacks and her family. Specifically, the act of taking Henriettas’ cells without permission. On the contrary, I don’t necessarily see it as an inexcusable act, nor do I view George Gey with disgust. What appalls me is that Henrietta has not received the recognition that she deserves. I think Rebecca Skloot (granted I have not read the part III yet) wanted to put a human being behind the cells; the individual that has helped to make medical advances discussed in Skloot’s book. So I guess I would say that the biggest injustice done to Henrietta, and her kin, is lack of recognition. Skloot has done an excellent job in her book affording Henrietta dignity. Then again, it is hard for me to view my body as my own personal property. It helps that I am more spiritual than religious. Also, being in the Army, I have been forced to give blood, directed to receive multiple vaccinations, and give up some wisdom teeth. I remember when we were in Iraq; we were told that we had to receive Anthrax vaccinations. Well some of us refused. Our commander then had to call us all in a formation, and read the directive. Long story short, if we didn’t take the vaccination we would be punished under the uniform code of military justice. It was BS, for the only information that I have been able to find about the side effects are all relayed on military sponsored web-sites. So I guess it has to do with personal experiences and beliefs where one stands on personal property. I know that if we had an outbreak of a terrible disease, and I had miracle cells, and my doctor took some tissue without my permission, I wouldn’t be terribly upset. I also wouldn’t expect money. What I would expect, is to go down in history as the guy with the miracle cell that saved the human race…ok a little dramatic…but once again clarifying my point, and what I think Rebeccal Skloot set out to do; not harp on the injustices, but ensure Henrietta Lacks is known as the person behind HeLa and; therefore, goes down in History.
Domalski

Henrietta Lacks

When I first began to read this book, I did not think that it would be anything like it is.  I originally imagined that this book would be more like a professional medical journal than the story of Henrietta's life like it is.  This book has truly captivated my attention, especially by giving all of the background knowledge on the "characters" lives.  Because I feel like I have an insight on who these people were, I feel like it helps with the ethical issues revolving around the book.  In addition, I think it is crucial to understand the time period that all of these events were taking place as well as the medical technology that was available at the time.  At this point in the book however I feel as if the family of Henrietta Lacks should at least receive free medical care due to the massive amounts of money the Hela cells have produced. 

Meghan Tonjes

All I have to say, wow.  Meghan Tonjes was a fantastic guest speaker in our class on Tuesday for numerous reasons.  Not only does she not fit the "ideal" body type making her deviant in nature already, but she is also an activist for overweight women that need to know that they are simply not alone.  In addition, add the fact that she is an amazingly talented musical artist, she has truly become a deviant of society in numerous ways.  Project lifesize however is what I think Meghan should be most known for.  Not only does this woman have a great personality, she also has a huge heart with her will to be a support for other overweight women.  Meghan Tonjes was an amazing inspiration and a great example of an "out of the box" activist event which would truly reach a tremendous amount of people.  All in all, I truly enjoyed her presentation and especially her beautiful music. 

Meghan's Visit

Thank you to those of you who posted kind words about Meghan Tonjes' visit to class. I will be sure to pass them along to her!

"HeLa": Disguising the "Deviancy"

The changing of Henrietta's name to "Helena Lane" may symbolize not only the doctor's attempts to hide the truth behind the injustice retrieval of the cells but ultimately, the identity of the source of the cells. Perhaps if the public had been made aware of the "HeLa" cells belonged to a black woman, they would have been reluctant to use the treatments born out of her cells. Why use cells from a "deviant" race? Even the media often referred to the cells as "abnormal." Could the use of the "abnormal" cells from a black woman help justify the retrieval of the cells? Could the "abnormal" cells obtained from a black woman justify the advancement of the cells finally developing into immortal cells?

Angela B.

Justified Benefits?

One point which was raised in class was the treatment of Henrietta as justice due to the benefits her cells have provided science. However, if we were to consider a majority of scientific procedures or medical interventions as justice due to the possible benefits many of the procedures such as sex reassignment surgery and the medical separation of conjoined twins would possibly be considered beneficial. However, it is the treatment of individuals which should be of high importance. For it is essential that the individual seeking help either receives such help or can make an inform decision. Rather than benefiting others, often only those who can afford the care or the medical professionals involved in the treatment.

Angela B.

Class itself

I think that the class discussions are running quit smoothly. I notice and I appreciate everyone being respectful and considered to others in the class. This class is very unique and very informative and I think it's great they we can all come together from different backgrounds to discuss diverse and tough topics/issues. I just wanted to state that comment.

Last Class

During last class, the question 'should Hernietta's family get something for the cells that was stolen from Hernietta?' arised. I personally think they should. These scientists got rich off something they should have went to jail over. The less they could do is give them some type of cash award, considering they still struggle economically to survive.