College’s too-fat-to-graduate rule under fire

Education with health requirements? Now this is definitely a radical idea. Students at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania not only have to take their required curriculum classes but any student who has a Body Mass Index of 30 or above is required to take or test out of a health course. This is the first requirement of its kind and is raising some issues among some of the students who attend the school.

Personally I find this rule to be offensive and unethical. Not all students are required to pass the health class only those with the BMI of 30 or greater. I find this prejudicial. Students attend college to receive an education in their desired field of study. If the area of study was physical education, I would understand the requirement. I don’t understand where the college administration thinks it is okay to require students to pass a class, especially a health course, when the class is not field related.

The university feels they are making a stand against obesity by imposing the requirement. One question not addressed by the article is: how many of the workers at this university have a body mass index of 30 or above? This would be quite interesting to know since the university most likely offers health insurance benefits. Would the university not gain more from having a healthier staff than healthier students? Also, what is the university’s stand on alcohol? Should it require Alcohol Awareness classes since most college age students binge drink?

Mammogram guidelines spark debate over health bill

This article discusses new health guidelines issued for women receiving mammograms. The article details that Republicans feel that the new health recommendations are coming at a time that would yield limitations and ration health care if the health care reform were passed into law. The new health recommendations for mammogram screening now start at the age of 50 rather than 40 years old. Many people, including myself, feel that although money maybe saved by changing the recommendations, many lives may be lost as a result of the change.

Personally the sudden change in the recommendations scares me. These recommendations become mandates for what procedures insurance companies will cover. I find it unethical that the recommendations are being changed to be more lenient at the same time that the United States Government is trying to pass a health care reform. I also feel that this change is only the beginning of many to come. I also saw an article where the recommendations on PAP smears have also been recently changed for women.

Soda Doping Raises Ethical Issues

I found this article to be quite interesting. Most individuals would guess that athletes who use a performance enhancer would be guilt of steroid use. However, this may not be completely accurate. This article details how the ingestion of baking soda can enhance an athlete’s ability. The article discusses whether or not to ban ‘soda doping’ – the ingestion of baking soda as an ergogenic aid.

The article details that some participants had negative side effects from the soda doping while most participants did not. Those who did not suffer any gastrointestinal side effects actually improved their running time by 2.2 seconds. The findings have brought about discussion on whether or not to ban the use of soda doping in sports. The doctor interviewed in this article feels that soda doping gives the user an unfair advantage because sodium bicarbonate is not normally ingested.

The American College of Sports Medicine has long prohibited the use of certain substances that give individuals an unfair advantage. I believe the ethical issue here is: what should be considered an unfair advantage? Is a mere 2.2 seconds enough to ban the use of baking soda? What happens to athletes who ingest an ingredient that gives them a boost but does so without prior knowledge? At what point should an ingredients be considered an unfair advantage?

‘Cancer-free’ baby born in London

This article is about a baby that has been born “cancer free”. The embryo was genetically tested and found to not have any genes that lead to breast and ovarian cancer. One might think that this is a miraculous event. I, however, feel that this maybe quite a feat, but it borders on medical personnel playing God. The embryos that are genetically tested and found to have cancer genes are destroyed. I personally feel this is unethical and unmoral. No one should be allowed to decide which embryos survive based upon what genes are present.

Supporters of this procedure feel that a 3 day old embryo should not be considered a child and find the testing to be no different than the medical testing most pregnant women undergo later in the pregnancies. However, some who oppose the testing feel that parents who use this procedure will become determined to remove all imperfections from the child. I guess the real question to ask is: at what point is an embryo considered a person? The answer may seem easy; however, the decision may have cataclysmic consequences.

World Stem Cell Summit 2009 Explores Ethical Issues

This article discusses the ethical issues that surround the use of stem cells. There are many ethical issues that arise from stem cell research. Everyone is aware of the moral dilemma of should the stem cell should be considered human or not. However, there are other issues that have come to light surrounding this new field of research. These issues “range from intellectual property rights of researchers to fairness of access to therapies developed from stem cells, from informed consent of stem cell donors and patients to social justice issues in the directions of research.”

The article also points out how women who are having trouble conceiving are more reluctant to “donate” their eggs to research than they are the fertilized embryos. This to me raises a moral dilemma in itself. The egg, unfertilized, will not become a human; however, the fertilized embryo, if allowed to mature, will become a fetus. Why should it be normal that a woman having trouble conceiving would donate the viable life form versus the unfertilized egg?

Gov Sanford used State Aircraft for personal use

<a href="“>

This article details Governor Sanford’s use of state aircraft to various locations throughout his terms in office. Some of these locations include vacation spots, his children’s sporting events, and his hairdresser. I found this article slightly disturbing. Sanford has been known for his thriftiness and refusal to spend money on state related issues that he deemed unnecessary. However, at the same time, he has been using state aircraft to travel to wherever he desired. Everyone knows that he took off to see his Argentine mistress but why wasn’t he public made aware of his frivolous use of the aircraft until after his public admittance of the affair?

One might can over look using the state aircraft to leave a business meeting to arrive in time to watch his child’s sporting event; after all, he is a father. However, why should Sanford be using state aircraft to the tune of 1,265 to be flown from Myrtle Beach back home to get his hair cut? These questions only lead me to wonder why he was being so thrifty with state money— so he could use it for personal use?

Interracial couple denied marriage license

This story really bothers me. The article details how a Louisiana interracial couple was refused their marriage license because the justice of the peace does not believe in interracial marriages. The justice of the peace states that he will marry black couples and white couples but not interracial ones. He states that he feels that the children produced from interracial couples are not accepted by either races and therefore he will not perform the ceremonies.

How can someone refuse to issue a marriage license because it doesn’t support what they believe? The fact that this happened in a Southern state screams “racism”. The justice of the peace denied the couple their license although he knew it was against the law for him to do so. The Louisiana Supreme Court is now investigating and the justice of the peace could be removed from office. Could be….Should be! The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that government officials can not tell individuals who they can and can not marry. The justice of the peace should be fired for violating the interracial couples’ constitutional rights.

Senator Pays Mistress $25,000 in Severance

This article details a sex scandal involving Las Vegas Senator John Ensign. His mistress worked as a treasurer for the senator’s campaign committee. Details surrounding the affair and severance pay have been provided by the mistress’s husband. Assuming that the allegations and details provided by the mistress’s husband are accurate this is unethical. The mistress, Cindy Hampton, should not have received any severance pay considering the circumstances. I personally feel that if you make the decision to sleep with your boss then you had better be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

The Senator, John Ensign, was also encouraged by other fellow senators to end the affair and to compensate the mistress and her husband to encourage them to move. This is also unethical. Why should she be paid to move? She entered into the affair willingly and should not be compensated for her unethical behavior of sleeping with the boss. The severance pay is being investigated by the senate ethics committee because the transaction was not recorded as severance pay to Ms. Hampton. This senator should be removed from office. How many unethical actions should it take to remove him?

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit

This article gives more specifics about the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit discussed in class. The article validates the points discussed in class pertaining to the temperature of the coffee and the prior complaints about the coffee. This article also provides details that were not in our text. The victim was not driving and the car was not in motion at the time of the incident. Also, research was provided that showed McDonald’s disregarded the previous complaints even though the company knew that most consumers intend to drink the coffee immediately after receiving it. This knowledge would sway most to believe that McDonald’s was definitely at fault.

Although I do believe that McDonald’s was culpable to an extent in this case, I feel that the victim was more than 20 percent liable for her actions. I still can’t fathom why she held the coffee between her legs to open the cup. The article points out that she was a passenger and the car was stopped. Why did she not hold the cup firmly in one hand while removing the lid with the other? This scenario seems to be more practical. One question that remains unanswered is whether or not the victim had purchased coffee from McDonald’s before. If she had previously purchased coffee from McDonald’s, then she would be aware of the temperature of the coffee. If this was the case, she becomes more at fault. Another interesting fact about this case was the victim and McDonald’s entered into a secret final settlement. With this in mind, do you think McDonald’s admitted they were more at fault or do you think the victim confessed she could have done things differently? Finally, do you think it was ethical for the final settlement to be kept secret?

Did Steve Jobs’ money buy him a faster liver transplant?

Is it ethical for a rich person to receive medical attention in favor of a poor person? This article speculates the Steve Jobs, who recently publically announced he had a liver transplant, may have moved up the transplant list because he is rich. The article details advantages that rich people may have when it comes to organ transplants. These advantages include, but are not limited to, being included on more than one organ donor list since they are “financially pre-approved”. Although the article states that it is unlikely that Steve Jobs was pushed to the front of the list since the United Network for Organ Sharing periodically performs audits to ensure this doesn’t happen, it is hard to believe that Jobs did not receive preferential treatment since his transplant occurred more than 2,000 miles from his home.

Should a person be allowed to receive an organ from a donor that is not in his immediate area? Should a poor, uninsured person be pushed back on the organ transplant list because someone, like Jobs, has the means and money to be placed on several organ transplant lists? Some may even argue that Jobs, a successful business man, deserves the liver more than an alcoholic bum who has not succeeded at life. I personally believe that although Steve Jobs is a successful business man he or any other rich person should not receive preferential treatment over a poor uninsured person.