Bioethics’s Hot Topic of Growth Hormones Essay examples

Scenario 1: You are the healthcare administrator of a nursing home. You are informed by your Admissions Director that a new memory-impaired resident has been admitted into your long-term care unit. The staff is concerned about the involvement of family with your resident. Family members from out-of-town arrived and expressed concern about your resident’s do not resuscitate (DNR) orders which were authorized by the Power of Attorney of another family member. A quarrel erupts in the nursing home with family members voicing their opinions loudly. You arrive on the scene and are immediately told by the visiting family member, “Do you know who I am? I am a supervisor for the Department of Health and Human Services and will not hesitate to have your facility surveyed for noncompliance.” What do you do?

Nevertheless, the unidentified person may have had malnutrition, which would lead to stunted growth in certain areas that happened to not affect the humerus or femur. Back to how the results came out, the students plugged the measurements into certain formulas according to race and gender. By having these differences in formula, it made it more accurate because each race and gender, due to genetics, can make the height different.

Vaccines change over time as science makes advancements and diseases processes evolve and emerge. Around 400 BC, Hippocrates recognized the now preventable diseases, such as diphtheria and mumps (Immunization Act Coalition, 2015). The first effort to immunize dates back to the 1100’s when children were inoculated with scabs from individuals who recently had small pox, with a technique coined as variolation. Then in 1796, Edward Jenner successfully created the first small pox vaccine (Immunization Act Coalition, 2015).

Controversy concerning the risks of vaccinations will always exist. As is the nature of a preventative intervention, it is difficult to rationalize giving a completely healthy child an injection that is known to have varying degrees of sides affects5. Additionally, these injections are to provide immunity to children for diseases that have an extremely low risk of circulating within a population. Since these vaccines have been able to protect so many individuals from experiencing these dangerous infections, most parents do not even have personal experiences regarding the impact of these diseases. As such, many parents do not see the vaccine-preventable disease as a threat to their child. This often causes parents to not fully understand the risk their child has for contracting a disease and the subsequent danger of a vaccine-preventable disease infection verses the potential side effect of a vaccine which is normally only mild to moderate discomfort for their child15.

Safe injection sites will not be helpful towards the opioid crisis. If the United States give people a place “to safely shoot up” (Mendell), they will end up just using the drugs outside of the center, at their drug dealer’s houses. Many humans will not admit that they have a problem or need help, they are afraid of judgement of others more than they are of their problem. The opioid users would “delay gratification until

Brian Johnson expressed his opinion of the issue at hand, “[l]et's see the proposal for “safe injection sites” for what it is — just another way to help dealers sell their drugs in the guise of being “safe.”” (Johnson). This idea speaks more loudly than any other presented in the discussion. “Safe injection sites” are not the right way to go about helping addiction. There are many flaws in this decision that can affect the outcome of a patient. Agreeing to continue to provide the drugs to which they are already addicted is nothing short of naive. This is just allowing the dealers to continue making money on something that is illegal; it should be prohibited, not advertised.

There is a lot of debate about whether if vaccines should be or should not be mandatory for all children or if their use should be up to the parents of the child. Part of the issue for many parents it the sheer volume of vaccines mandated by various government agencies. Based on the recommendations of these organizations, a child can receive “no less than 69 doses of 16 vaccines” (children-vaccines). With so many vaccines being given many parents question why so many children are sick or have various developmental or learning disabilities. In fact, one child out of 6 has a learning disability, one out of ten is asthmatic, and one out of 50 has some degree of autism. This means that almost 30% of children in the US have a significant disability

Medications used to treat this condition come with risks, and parents often wish to avoid them for this reason. For those who do choose medication for their child, the worry that the medication will be used improperly is present. For these reasons, parents often look for alternatives when it comes to treating their child.

While parents have their kids engaged into the drug treatment they should be aware of the long term effects on the kids. We have to take into consideration that your brain isn’t fully developed until you are twenty six years old, but we are giving these drugs to kids as young as

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

Including what the short-term and long-term consequences are when vaccinations at taken. Nevertheless, “Health officials are quick to point out that the odds a child will die or become disabled from the diseases targeted by vaccines are far greater than being harmed by the vaccine,” concludes Koch (“Vaccine Controversies” 644). True, immunization may save a child’s life, but evidence to prove not being vaccinated will have drastic consequences is not

As technology advances and medical procedures and research expand, new treatments and new conflicts are created. A problem that has always plagued medical science is failing organs. As of today, organ failure is impossible to reverse and the only solution is replacement. There is a massive demand for healthy organs and with this demand comes the issue of bioethics.

Parents all across the United States have an issue with vaccinations for their children. Parents as of today do not have the option whether or not to immunize their children. These vaccinations are potentially harmful for children, but they also help and prevent life threatening illnesses. Parents should be allowed to choose to vaccinate their children because at times, the vaccine might harm the child, and because the parents simply just have right.

While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and

Human growth hormone, a substance produced in the human body, is now being sold over the Internet. Companies are marketing the product as an anti-aging product. At the web-site, http://www.awakenhgh.com, the company claims that there is a possibility that one can "stop the aging process." On the home page, they claim that the product can reduce fat and cellulite, increase energy and muscle tone, elevate mood, improve sexual performance and sleep, remove wrinkles, balance cholesterol, re-grow and re-color hair, and more. The product is a dietary oral spray that they claim contains a product that is "identical to the growth hormone manufactured in the human body" and is designed for oral consumption. They also