blog 22

In order to present a valid argument, several steps must be taken. Today in class we talked about how our argument needs to be broken into five key parts to become presentable. First of all, we need the actual argument from the primary source. In my case, my argument is that science can and will eventually cross the moral line by artificially creating or resuscitating life (as seen in the episode that parallels the classic novel, Frankenstein). This argument is clearly drawn from the primary source, which is the episode “Some Assembly Required” from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The second part of a strong argument is the evidence. I need proof that the episode is making a comparison to modern day science and a concise reference to Frankenstein. An example of my proof could be that the episode follows along with the novel, such as when Daryl lectures Chris, his brother and “creator” that he owes him a companion and he must take care of him. This is exact scene takes place in Frankenstein. The argument also needs a link, or a relationship to the real world concept. I have to state the relationship between the episode and my argument that science will one day cross the line. Secondary sources are needed as well that will explain the background of the ethical issue of resuscitation and artificial creation. I have achieved this using information I have collected on experiments around the world as well as doctor’s opinions and experiences. Lastly, I need implication. I must show how serious and what a threat my topic truly is, and imply why it is important for the reader to consider.

blog 21

            As seen in “Some Assembly Required”, a high school boy forcibly brings his rotting brother back from the dead. Obviously the procedure has been performed out of love, but was it fair to the already dead brother? This conflict occurs in our society today as well. Hospitals have adopted a policy in which they must assume patients want to be resuscitated unless the patient tells them otherwise. Dr. Howard Brody, a family practitioner and medical ethicist at the Michigan State University Clinical Center claimed in 2005, “Cardiac resuscitation is being widely misapplied and overused, leading to costly and sometimes painful efforts on patients who are unlikely to benefit. We've reached a point where almost no one is allowed to die in a U.S. hospital without resuscitation.” This means that no matter what, unless you are on record as a D.N.R (Do Not Resuscitate), you will be injected with adrenaline, violently pressed during CPR, or electrically jolted by a machine until you wake up. These procedures cost money that could go towards living patients with hope of a future, and are also extremely painful for the patient to experience. Some of these patients come back only to suffer brain damage and other ailments, and some simply go through more pain and then slip away. Is it fair to them? No. Was it fair to the dead brother? No, (hence the relevance to my paper). These are real life concepts that need to be addressed and handled accordingly. People are ripped from death and slung back into life without clear consent, and many of them later explain that they did not want to undergo that process.

blog 20

In the case of “Some Assembly Required”, Buffy has witnessed a corpse already being reanimated and yet another corpse in the process of being reanimated. It is an amazing and complex feat, but is it possible. Experiments around the world have been conducted and repeated throughout history in order to test this theory that life can be resurrected. One of these experiments would be that of Sergei S. Brukhonenko, a Russian Cardiovascular and Thoracic surgeon and scientist. Surgei created the first heart-lung machine in June of 1928, and proceeded to demonstrate its affects to the international audience at the 3rd Congress of Physiologists of the USSR. In this experiment, Surgei kept a live decapitated dog head alive for several hours using only his machine. The dog was dead, but after being connected to the machine it was completely revived. Surgei stated, “Would not this method, duly perfected, be useful in clinical medicine: notably in those cases where it would be essential to replace, if only for a time, the work of the failing human heart?” What he was implying is that his machine could save lives, revive the dead, and expand the life in general, especially during surgery. Indeed Surgei is correct; his machine does hold much potential. This quote/concept is very important in relevance to my paper because my entire thesis is based on the ethics and possibility of creating and reviving life. This event proves that the act is quite possible, which will allow me to build my paper upon it.

blog 19

My fourth article is called “Unmasking the Secret of Life”. It is an excerpt written by Craig J. Venter, a doctor and writer for the British Medical Journal. The main argument is that Venter has cracked the human genome and has discovered the secret to creating life. He has studied genomes so thoroughly and has experimented so often that he was comfortable enough to post his own DNA online for everyone to see. He talks of each new born baby leaving the maternity ward having pre-determined and set profiling genes right then and there. He claims he can not only create life from pre-existing life using his studies and the genome, but also that he can grow and create life with pre-determined genes. This is a bold claim for an ordinary man; however he is confident he could do it. This project would be extremely costly both money wise and ethics wise due to the resources and controversy it would cause. Venter also proposes an intriguing idea about how our CO2 emissions are ruining the ozone and deteriorating our planet. His idea is to create an organism that creates large amounts of carbon to use as an alternative green energy source. Sounds great, but really think about it. He wants to create some sort of new organism. How do we know if it thinks? Would it be more animal or human? Could it possibly evolve into something bad, like something that emits poison instead of hydrogen, or even become a predator to humans? More and more technological advances are coming. Didn’t most of those lead to all of the CO2 emissions anyway? Maybe we shouldn’t just keep throwing more science at the problem.

blog 18

My third article is called “HEALTH; Rules on Reviving the Dying Bring Undue Suffering, Doctors Contend”. It is a newspaper article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal, a writer for the New York Times. The main argument in this article is that almost no one is allowed to die in a hospital without attempted resuscitation, which is often unnecessary and painful. Only ten to fifteen percent of patients who are revived will survive. Many people include in their doctors records, D.N.R, or “Do Not Resuscitate” upon their death. To some people, when death comes, it is time to go. Why should we toy with the natural balance of life? Is that our place? It is a normal policy for doctors to shove tubes in lungs, crack ribs, and violently shock a corpse to revive it. This is for all patients, even terminally ill ones. Many are revived simply to suffer excruciating pain for a few more days and then pass away once again. Occasionally resuscitation does work, for cases such as cardiac arrest and stroke. Those who survive often suffer nerve/brain damage, as well as pain from the resuscitation itself. It makes you think, should we really be doing this? Are we that afraid of death that no one is allowed to just slip away peacefully? Why should I have to state in paper whether or not I want to really die when I die? Not only is it painful for doctors to have to do, but it is also painful for families. The doctor knows the patient is going to die and nothing will help, yet is required by code to try and revive them. So that doctor pulls the curtains and begins the awful process, knowing the patient will suffer and die, while their family stands outside the curtain hoping and praying it works. To me, this is a terrifying way to die. I don’t want to be shocked, just let me go painlessly.

blog 17

Another one of my articles is called “Body Snatching & Grave Robbing: Bodies for Science”. It is an excerpt written by Megan J. Highet in the text, History & Anthropology. The main argument in this essay is whether or not nineteenth-century anthropologists were upholding ethical responsibilities when they extracted Native American corpses from their grave for dissection. It really grinds down to the exploitation of marginalized members of society. The bodies were simply extracted as resources (without permission) and then dissected and studied. This is grave-robbing in its most literal sense. Ethical responsibilities for the deceased and their families were not at all acknowledged and after the scientists were done with the bodies they would dispose of them however was most convenient, not put them back in the ground where they found them. There are two sides to this dilemma. Firstly, body snatching is wrong and cruel and not at all sensitive to those families or people. On the other hand, how many helpful and potentially life-saving discoveries have scientists discovered by dissecting/studying bodies? I am not justifying their actions at all, yet it is a valid argument that no progress in medicine and operation could ever be made without exploration of the human body. Today, people are much more likely to donate their bodies to science once they are dead. Back then, it was rarely heard of. How else would they get their bodies? Granted, they did it to the Native Americans because they didn’t really care what they thought as they were considered below the other races. So when does progressive science cross the line? Consider what we have today before concocting an answer.

blog 16

              One of my articles is called “Frankenstein as Science Fiction and Fact”. It is a Thesis written by Van D. Laan, a professor at Illinois State University. Mr. Laan’s main argument is that Frankenstein not only paved the way for science fiction writing, but also identified the “ostensibly high-minded and well-intentioned hopes and promises of the scientist/technologist”.  The article goes on to describe how Frankenstein depicted an intense and impossible scientific feet that has somehow become possible in our modern world. It is now referred to as biotechnology, biomedicine, and bioengineering. At the time, Mary Shelley (author of Frankenstein) had imagined the most far-fetched scientific experiment she could in order to write her realistic fiction. However that has now become a very real possibility. It just goes to show you what we disprove today may soon be proven in the nearby future. Laan also brings to light the fact that Victor Frankenstein has come to serve as the “poster child and whipping boy for all scientific and technological irresponsibility”. It almost acts as a worst standard that could buffer any criticism towards our scientists today. After all, none of us could be as bad as Frankenstein, right? Now that really isn’t all too clear. Now with biotechnology, biomedicine, and bioengineering developing at a rapid rate, we may just end up reproducing Frankenstein. If that did happen, what would be the new worst standard? What would be the new thing to push off guilt and blame? “Oh well at least we aren’t as bad as the Nazi’s!” Wait, should you even be anywhere near as bad as that? It’s just something to think about.