Blog 17: More Opposing Viewpoints!

Health Care is Too Expensive

Larry Kudlow, “Obama’s ‘Public’ Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation.” Kudlow argues that Obamacare would bankrupt the nation because adding 50million people will definitely further the debt that America is already in. It's strange though because he uses so many statistics but he doesn't tell you where they came from...a lot of things are vague. Like when he says "Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money?" You are left wondering who are the 50million people that would be added? Do they have access to medical care? Do they have money to pay for their medical bills? He also throws big statistics at you like "Let’s not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole." Which is turning this into a fact to the reader who doesn't actually think about where this statistic came from or the reader who doesn't know that Americas National Debt is around 13trillion dollars...but If you do know that, it makes that totally uncredible, because how can a Americas national debt be 13trillion and an agency within america is 80trillion in debt? It doesn't add up.
George F. Will, "Dr. Leavitt's Scary Diagnosis." Dr. Leavitt was a secretary of the department of health and he talks about how health care can be a "nation ruining issue." In the first paragraph he tells us that over the next two years the amount of taxes paid that go towards Medicare and Medicaid "will go from 23 percent to 41 percent of average household income." This is crazy! it almost doubles, and thats only for the average household. Now I'm wondering what is the average household defined as...He goes on to give some history about Medicare and how things are different now as the three major operations done in hospitals for elderly are knee, hip, and cardiovascular surgeries, which were not common in 1965 when health care was created. I learned that 43 years ago it was decided that Medicare would be paid for by those who were still currently working., but as the # of seniors has grown the # of workers has declined- thus creating a very bad problem for medicare. Now I know why Medicare is underfunded, well part of the reason anyways. "Leavitt says that until health-care recipients of common procedures can get, upfront, prices they can understand and compare, there will be little accountability or discipline in the system." This basically tells me that the current health care system is totally unrealiable and wild and you never know what your bill will be so thats why its an unstable system.


Health Care is Not Too Expensive

Joel A. Harrison, “Paying More, Getting Less.” When I read this article on tuesday night I didn't really understand everything clearly except for the fact in Ameriacs Health care plan, something has gone wrong, but it is possible to have a health care system that works. "In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation’s GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560." Right in the begining of the article that writer introduces all of the statistics of the wealthiest countries and what they spend on health care, comparitive and contrastive. Overall you can come to the conclusion that America pays about double the amount per capita that Canada, France, Germany, and the UK spend. There is obviously something wrong with that because those countries are smaller therefore create smaller revenues compared to America. So America should have a lower overall cost since there is so much more revenue in the US than in the other countries. The article reveals to some people that health care is already paid by everyone sort of secretly by taxes. There is just so many little fragments of your taxes that go off to separate government health care agencies...so that makes you ask how are we in a health care crisis if we are already unknowingly paying health care through our taxes? Thats when you find out that the agencies use the money for things like paying their employees and other things, but not actual clinical related things. The money is used for nonclinical objects. That part probably makes a lot of people mad.

Randall Hoven, “A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage.” "We now have the worst of both worlds: we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it. In fact, we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage. Then we pay more than that amount again in private coverage. Additionally, what we have now in the U.S. is nowhere near a free market in health care. Defending the status quo is not defending a free market. And if socialized medicine is your fear, we already have it." This quote was in the begining of that article and it s hows what this person is going to talk about in that article. I'm confused because they don't explain what socialized medicine is but they don't like it. He goes on to talk about how America spends so much more than other countries on health care using statistics.

"So let's review. The government provides Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, veterans' hospitals for veterans, medical research funding and whatever else adds up to 6.6% of GDP. The federal government forces hospitals to provide emergency treatment to all comers. State governments mandate over 1,900 types of coverage on health insurance. Health care regulations cost the average household over $1,500.We already have socialized medicine and we are already paying for it -- twice: once in taxes and once privately. What we are not getting is universal coverage." This quote kinda recaps everything that I have read, even in other articles. So he can connect with the author of the article before this one about Leavitty, because he states we are paying for universal health care, yet we aren't recieving it. That seems to be a reoccuring idea.

If we are to be consistent libertarians, then the government should stop meddling in health care and health insurance altogether. End Medicare. End Medicaid. Close down veterans' hospitals. Stop funding medical research. Stop funding pharmaceutical research. Stop mandating vaccines. Stop mandating emergency room treatment. Stop mandating health insurance policies. Stop doing those things that cost us 6.6% of our GDP when we have to kick in another 7% or more of our own.If our government stopped all those things, then I would a happy libertarian.

There is his basic ideal opinion.

MY OPINION?
Reading all of these articles has introduced a boat load of new info to me....I think I really agree that we are paying for universal health care but we aren't recieving it and that its kind of ridiculous how they sneakily use our tax money to pay government health care agencies and then the government health care agencies don't even use the money on actual clinically related issues. I agree with the first, that Health Care is TOO exspensive. But I also believe that it can be changed if they changed the system. So maybe instead of just sneaking those wierd fragments into your taxes they could outright just say THIS IS FOR HEALTH CARE TAXES:$__________. Then people would understand where there money is going but that won't exactly cure the whole crisis. I remember reading an article where Regina ____ said that in Switzerland? I think that everyone pays the same amount no matter your social class and that works in her country so why wouldn't it work here. I think maybe America should start to stop trying to be a loner and do things like they know whats best for their citizens beacuse they obviously don't or else there wouldn't be this huge crisis. They should get their head out of the clouds and just like see what actually works in other countries and debate whether it would work here in America. It's just an Idea.

Blog #16: Opposing Viewpoints and Genetic Testing for Life: The Book

HEALTH CARE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

"A Good Case for Universal Health Care," by Bryan Young: I think if Young was talking about genetic screenings or people who are getting the test done, he would encourage them to pay for it through their health insurance with a back up of 'well it's occured within you or your ancestors or whoever in your family so it is only right to take preventative measures in you or your future babies lives.' I draw a modest income with my media production business, but being self-employed makes health insurance damn near impossible to afford. I think this is some sort of backup to the reason I would think he would encourage them to pay for the test through health insurance, then he'd probably go on about why universal health care is good and tell them all about everything he encountered.

“Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege,” by Sen. Bernie Sanders.: Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. If Sanders was talking about genetic screenings while justifying that health care is a fundamental right, not a priviledge, I think he would argue that since the genetic tests are so exspensive and theres a huge amount of people who don't have health insurance, health insurance should be guaranteed. Therefore allowing anyone to recieve the genetic test so they can pay through their insurance. More than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. He'd also probably use this quote to justify the whole pay with your health coverage insurance plan so you can get a genetic test that will give youinsight on the diseases your future babies might be diagnosed with.

“We Are Not Free: Health Care as a Human Right,” by Helen Redmond.:The health care crisis impacts every aspect of our lives down to the most seemingly insignificant personal decisions we make. This national bully terrorizes and forces us to live in fear. She would probably try to comfort the people and tell them they are not the only people who are afraid of the debt they could get into when seeking a genetic test. She would probably name all sorts of other medical or genetic stuff that people are afraid to go because the cost is just overwhelming. People with serious mental illness encounter stigma, discrimination and difficulty accessing treatment. This relates to something that I wanted to talk about in my article; Genetic Discrimination. I say that because people are afraid to get genetic test because of what the results may bear....and if and employer or insurance company finds out they can genetically discriminate that person and deny them the job or health insurance in order to save theirselves the time/money. She claims that this is one of the ways that the current health care ploicy is bullying people everywhere so she could talk to the people who are considering genetic tests and say ' if we had health care as a fundamental right this wouldnn't happen, thus gaining more people who are on her side.

HEALTH CARE IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

“Health Care Is Not a Right,” by Jacob G. Hornberger.:

I think that Hornberger would add this genetic testing to a reason of why there shouldn't be public or universal health care (is there a difference between the two?) because the US tax dollars that everyone pays, may possibly end up paying for some of someones genetic testing bill- and everyone isn't getting these tests conducted. "If I have a right to something, then doesn’t that mean that you have a correlative duty to provide it? If you’re a doctor, then it means that you are required to serve my needs, like it or not. If I need an operation, then you cannot say “no” because that would be denying me my right to health care." He would probably use this to people who are trying to pay for their genetic testing through their health insurance plan and say 'this is the reason why we shouldn't have health care!' Maybe I just viewed this as a really bad article and thought it seemed to be using a very accusatory tone...

“There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lumpectomy: The folly of a "right to health care," by Jacob Sullum.It also reveals a radical assault on the traditional American understanding of rights. The Framers believed the Constitution recognized pre-existing rights, protecting them from violation by the government. The common law likewise developed as a way of protecting people from wrongful interference by their neighbors. If people have rights simply by virtue of being human, those rights can be violated (by theft or murder, for example) even in the absence of government. I think if this guy had to write anything concerning whether people should pay with their health insurance for a genetic test he would say that it doesn't matter, but he would probably tell them that if they were interested in paying through health insurance but don't even have any money that they should consider just not even having one. If he finds out those people believe in health care as something they should just be born with he'd probably use the constitution to prove them wrong.
“Health Care is not a right,” by Iain Murray and Roger Abbott.This claim is misleading for several reasons, but most fundamentally because of its conflation of “rights” and “needs.” Obamacare opponents need to address this emotional appeal. After all, who can be against basic “rights”? In this quote he was referring to the fact that nationalizing health care will supposedly just fill the needs of everyone who doesnt have health insurance is misleading to people who don't really know all of the basics of the health care systems. He would argue the practicality of using health insurance to pay for genetic testing because that is something thats not really requiring medical attention, its just you wanting to conduct the test to see if you might need some sort of medical attnetion for you future babies. He'd probably call them totally skeptical and just over worried and not knowing the differences of WANTS and NEEDS.

MY OPINION

Well health care can impact genetic testing because depending on what test you want to have done, genetic testing can be pricey. I think it can range from $100-$3,000 and not everyone has that much money in their bank accounts. So comes the question of can I pay for this with my health coverage? Which ties into the debate over whether there should be universal health care or survival of the fittest type health care where its every man for himself. I guess my personal opinion is mixed...I think it depends on certain circumstances and dilemmas for universal healthcare. I think Universal Healthcare shouldn't cover the cost of something like genetic testing, because its something rare, and if you want to have it, the payment should come from your own pocket not someone elses.

Blog #15 Life: The Book & American History

Part 1

Off the top of my head I know that America had to come up with thier own factories to create their weapons and other necessities during WW2. It created so many jobs for women-who weren't fighting in the war- and basically ended the great depression. "American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy)." The way that technology was advanced during the Industrialization time period set expectations that scientists would continue their new innovations in the coming future.

Before World War II was the Great Depression which completely destabilized the economy and the governments.

"In the United States, President Franklin Roosevelt promised, less dramatically, to enact a "New Deal" which would essentially reconstruct American capitalism and governance on a new basis. As it waxed and waned between 1933 and 1940, Roosevelt's New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany's invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression."

Many people were unemployed during the Great Depression which caused there to be little to no money for families and business owners which resulted in the meltdown of the economy in the 1930s. What I talked about before how when WWII came new businesses had to be opened which created tons of jobs for everyone to support the war, the economy sprang back up into action. The government controlled the economy through spending and consumptions is something that I found that I think is wierd because isn't spendings and consumptions equivalent to economics?

Part 2

A compelling character has some sort of profound connection of the main idea of the story: A patient, a doctor, a scientist, a politician, etc. An example of this is Francis Collins. Many of the articles in the New Yorker that we read in class include Francis Collins as a character because of the profound research and discoveries he has conducted in the science field.

An interesting plot has a 'who, what, when, where, and why' to it. The who and the what are probably introduced in the first paragraph, then later on disected into more detailed sections about who is invovled, what the actual topic is, the effect of the topic, the statistics of the topic, and real life connections; economical connections, cultural connections, historical connections, and political/governmental connections. For example in the article called Open Channels in the New Yorker, it introduces Chrissy, who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and deals with many conflicts in her every day life.

Specifics steps taken are introducing a character humbly, then later on revealing what went wrong with that character (for chrissy it was cystic fibrosis). Then they go into a little bit of background info of cystic fibrosis. they talk about how their is experimental drugs, but instead of flat out saying "There is an Experimental drug people take", they say something along the lines of: Chrissy was one of the 19 people who were involved in the Vertex's experimental drug project." Then they involve quotes from her to have actual results instead of saying oh it worked! Later on they talk more in depth about the experimental drug and what companies/peoples/groups that have made progress. They also have quotes from the peoples/organizations/groups and end with yet another character, this time a child.

The characters in many of these articles have a wide variety of personalities. Some are young and playful while others are middle aged and weary. I remember one of the quotes that was used in Open Channels that almost ANYONE should be able to connect to was when Chrissy said something along the lines of: Once you feel what it's like to be normal, your abnormality sucks. Those definately weren't the exact words, but that was the main point of the quote. They also used things where Chrissy went to church and her nephew who most likely doesnt understand cystic fibrosis was excited when he noticed Chrissy wasn't coughing as often as she used to. Its something that a lot of people can connect to because when a young child notices something, it must really be a huge improvement especially if its something complex as her disease. You also can imagine the reassurance that Chrissy felt to hear her nephew say that.

Blog #14! The life book & Humanities

Part 1:

The stage of life I will write about will either be pre-conception or during pregnancy. The relevant element of genetic technology that I will incorporate into my article is genetic testing: an array of techniques including analysis of human DNA, RNA or protein. Genetic tests are used as a health care tool to detect gene variants associated with a specific disease or condition, as well as for non-clinical uses such as paternity testing and forensics. In the clinical setting, genetic tests can be performed to confirm a suspected diagnosis, to predict the possibility of future illness, to detect the presence of a carrier state in unaffected individuals (whose children may be at risk), and to predict response to therapy. They are also performed to screen fetuses, newborns or embryos used in in vitro fertilization for genetic defects.

Part 2:

The National Human Genome Research Institute (http://www.genome.gov/10002335) is a research institute that primarily focuses on the research of human genomes. They have come up with important questions that may arise on the subject of genetic testing, tracked the legislature concerning genetic testing, their concerns and activities centering genetic testing, recommendations they have for policies concerning genetic screenings, and lastly a list of reports on genetic testing/screenings.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) - staffed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Biotechnology Activities - provides policy advice to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the broad array of complex medical, ethical, legal and social issues raised by genetic testing.

On March 26^th of 2009, SACGHS wrote a letter to the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities. “Genomic tests are expected to become increasingly prevalent in the coming years. The hope is that these tests will enable early diagnosis of common diseases and guide preventive measures tailored to each individual’s genotype. Similarly, pharmacogenomics tests are expected to enable more tailored treatment. Given the promise and potential value of genomic tests in reducing the burden of common diseases, these tests warrant careful study to assess their clinical utility…. working group does not have sufficient resources to keep pace with new and anticipated genomic tests. Thus, other government resources are needed to support the primary studies of these tests and disseminate their results. Like genomic information, family health history can provide clues to a patient’s inherited risk for common diseases. This test is already commonly used in clinical care but, for the most part, providers lack evidence-based guidance on how to use the information in clinical decision-making. Comparative effectiveness studies of family health history would provide needed guidance on how to incorporate this low-cost clinical tool into health care practice. SACGHS has made recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services about the need for the establishment and support of a program to conduct studies on the clinical utility of genomic tests. In our view, such assessments are key to the successful translation of genomic discoveries into clinically useful tests. SACGHS reports and recommendations are available at…”

The US Department of Health and Human Services also plays a role in Genetic Testings. DHHS mission is to Helping Consumers Take Control of Their Health Care. The Affordable Care Act, passed on September 23rd, 2010, gives consumers new rights and benefits in their health insurance. New funding for state consumer assistance programs will make sure people get those rights and benefits and take control of their health care. DHHS is involved in genetic screenings/testing: Statement on Genetic Testing in the New Millenium: Advances, Standards, Implications by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. “Having the complete set of human genes – the periodic table for biology – will make it possible to begin to understand how genes function and interact. All of human biology then likely will be divided into what we knew before having the human DNA sequence and what we knew after. But, the HGP does not stop with completion of the human sequence. "This rapid availability of genomic resources and tools will accelerate dramatically the isolation of genes involved in disease and in drug response. As genome diagnostic and treatment technologies move from the laboratory into the health care setting, new genetic testing methods will make it possible to read the instructions contained in an individual’s DNA. Such knowledge may:

· Confirm a diagnosis of an individual who has already developed a disease;

· Predict risk of future disease in healthy individuals and alert patients and their health care providers to begin prevention strategies; or

· Identify risks of having a child with an inherited disorder.

In general, researchers and health care providers agree that predictive genetic testing should not be offered in the clinical setting without knowing the reliability and validity of the tests. Many also have raised concerns about the clinical use of genetic tests in the absence of safe and effective medical interventions for people who are found to carry inherited alterations that put them at high risk for disease. However, genetic testing still is a relatively new medical intervention for which regulatory and legal controls are unclear and the pathway for the clinical integration of new predictive tests has yet to be established.

From its inception, the Human Genome Project of the NHGRI recognized the responsibility not only to develop powerful new gene-finding technologies, but also to address up front the broader implications of these newfound abilities to decipher genetic information. Because genetic information is personal, powerful, and potentially predictive, its misuse can have significant consequences to individuals or to groups of individuals. NHGRI commits 5 percent of its extramural research budget to support research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of advances in genetics. The early goals of the ELSI program focused on four high-priority areas: (1) the use and interpretation of genetic information; (2) the clinical integration of genetic technologies; (3) issues surrounding the conduct of genetics research; and (4) public and professional education in genetics.

ETHICAL SOCIAL AND LEGAL

Protections must be erected against the misuse of genetic information. Fears about the loss of privacy of genetic information and the loss of a job or insurance coverage may make people hesitant to use medical advances. They also may be hesitant to volunteer for studies of disease-linked gene mutations for fear the results could be used against them. Although many states have attempted to address "genetic discrimination" in health insurance and the workplace, federal legislation would provide the most comprehensive protections.

Every physician, nurse, and health care provider will need to become familiar with this emerging field of genetic medicine. The need for medical genetic specialists who can sort out the most complex cases will be considerable, but there will not be enough of them to go around, and most genetic medicine will be delivered by primary care providers.

Finally, we must implement the proper regulatory and legal framework for the successful clinical integration of emerging genetic technologies. The Task Force on Genetic Testing report provided a good starting point for that process. There is still much work to be done. Now is the time for all parties to come together and develop a meaningful framework for insuring the safe and effective use of new genetic technologies in medicine. “ http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990421a.html

Part 3:

Genetic Discrimination: http://www.genome.gov/10002328#al-1

“Genetic discrimination occurs if people are treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that increase their chances of getting a certain disease. Everyone should care about the potential for genetic discrimination. More and more tests are being developed to find DNA differences that affect our health. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, also referred to as GINA, is a new federal law that protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that may affect their health. The law was needed to help ease concerns about discrimination that might keep some people from getting genetic tests that could benefit their health. The law protects people from discrimination by health insurers and employers on the basis of DNA information. The law does not cover life insurance, disability insurance and long-term care insurance. Before the federal law was passed, many states had passed laws against genetic discrimination. For the text of the bill see: H.R. 493”

Genetic Discrimination is a relevant concept that can relate to the ideas of my article because some people are actually afraid that genetic testing can promote Genetic Discrimination. That genetic discrimination can occur within the family if one if afraid of their family member(s) finding out what one may be carrying, which may be a new revelation to others and make them wonder who it was passed down from. Genetic Discrimination might also occur when a Health Insurer finds out about the genetic abnormality, and may deny a person health insurance because of that. Employers may also use genetic information to determine whether to hire, keep, or fire employees. Genetic Screenings will be a huge advance in bio-technology, but shouldn’t be pursued further unless the genetic information is protected, thus preventing the possibility of it being used against someone. The Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act of 2008 was created to protect Americans from health insurers and employers who may try to discriminate them based on their genetic abnormalities. The law that was passed is basically the minimum requirement of protection a state must have to protect people against genetic discrimination, thus creating different levels of protection depending on the state in which you reside.

Economic: http://www.genetichealth.com/GT_Genetic_Testing_Costs_of_Genetic_Testing.shtml

Say you go in to have a meeting with your doctor to decide whether genetic testing is the right path for you and your partner. After a while of one on one conversation you are hit with the surprisingly large amount of money it will cost you. It brings up these questions:

Why Are Genetic Tests so Expensive? Often people have this reaction when they find out the price. Reason 1 why genetic testing procedures are so expensive varies depending on the type of lab procedure conducted, the size and number of genes you are having tested, and whether the test is conducted in a commercial or research lab. Reason 2 is because genetic tests are rare, it is not every day that one science will conduct 100 tests as they do with other common procedures. If the rate of people getting genetic tests increases, there is a possibility of the cost decreasing. Reason 3 is labor intensive- genetic testing requires the extraction of DNA from the blood sample which is not required in non-genetic tests. Not to mention the various levels of review that the test results have to go through before you can get them back. This is something that is necessary though, for the most accurate results of your genetic screening you must pay the price.
What Do Genetic Tests Really Cost?

Costs for Selected Genetic Tests by Disorder and Type of Test
LAB Test	Sequencing	Heteroduplex Analysis	DGGE	ASO	PTT
HNPCC	$500-3000	$260	$250-800	--	--
FAP	$800-1000	--	--	--	$235
BRCA1	$1290	--	--	$350-450	--
BRCA2	$1290	--	--	$350-450	--
BRCA-Ashkenazi mutations	--	--	--	$190-354	--
DGGE=Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis ASO=Allele specific oligonucleotide PTT=Protein truncation test

Should I Opt for the Less Expensive Test? Choosing the cheaper test may yield a less accurate or not a detailed account of your results from the genetic screening. The cheaper test may only include results based on what is already known to be in your family, whereas in a more costly genetic test, the results will yield ‘whole genes and identify mutations when one has not previously been identified in a family.’ If you are applying for a genetic screening, you should choose your test should be based on what results you want, not the cost.

Should I Use Insurance to Pay for A Genetic Test?

Pros of using insurance: The biggest pro of using insurance is that genetic tests cost money. Having your insurance company pay for the testing will save you from paying up to thousands of dollars for testing. If you get a positive result, your insurance company may be more likely to cover medical interventions specific for your disorder.
Cons of using insurance: If you use insurance to pay for testing, there will likely be a record in your file that a genetic test was ordered for you. The results may or may not be part of this record. This creates the potential for lack of genetic privacy that may lead to job, medical, or other discrimination.

Miscarriages: http://www.ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/testing/riskslimitations

Although it is not guaranteed, and maybe even considered rare, genetic tests risk the chance of having a miscarriage. ‘The procedures used for prenatal testing carry a small but real risk of losing the pregnancy (miscarriage) because they require a sample of amniotic fluid or tissue from around the fetus.’

Abortions related to Genetic Screenings: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/weekinreview/13harm.html?_r=1 ARTICLE!

“SARAHLYNN LESTER, 32, considers herself a supporter of abortion rights. She gives money to the National Abortion Rights Action League and volunteers for Planned Parenthood. But as a woman who continued a pregnancy after learning that her child would have Down syndrome, she also has beliefs about the ethics of choosing, or not choosing, certain kinds of children.

“I thought it would be morally wrong to have an abortion for a child that had a genetic disability,” said Ms. Lester, a marketing manager in St. Louis.

As prenatal tests make it possible to identify fetuses that will have mental retardation, deafness, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a range of other conditions, such personal deliberations are adding a new layer to the fraught political debate over abortion.

Abortion rights supporters — who believe that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body — have had to grapple with the reality that the right to choose may well be used selectively to abort fetuses deemed genetically undesirable. And many are finding that, while they support a woman’s right to have an abortion if she does not want to have a baby, they are less comfortable when abortion is used by women who don’t want to have a particular baby.

“How much choice do you really want to give?” asked Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “That’s the challenge of prenatal testing to pro-choicers.”

For many women and their partners, the decision to terminate a pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of a serious genetic defect can be harrowing, often coming after a painful assessment of their own emotional and financial resources.

And there is widespread support for such an option: 70 percent of Americans said they believe that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby, according to a 2006 poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center.

“This issue underscores the importance of families making personal, private decisions without political interference,” said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, in a statement. “The decision should be with women, their families, and their doctors.”

But as more tests become available for conditions that do not involve serious disabilities, childhood diseases or death in early childhood, the emerging ethical questions may inject more nuance into a perennially polarized discussion.

“It will capture where the mainstream of Americans are on prenatal testing and abortion,” Dr. Caplan added. “Which is, some reasons seem good, and some don’t.”

Traditional anti-abortion advocates, from conservative politicians to Pope Benedict, have in recent months criticized the growing use of prenatal testing as a subtle form of eugenics. But the specter of fetuses being selectively targeted for elimination also has the potential to disturb solid supporters of abortion rights.

Some disabilities rights advocates, for example, are pressing the need to reconcile protecting abortion rights with a democratic imperative to embrace human diversity.

“If the response is simply, ‘You all are just anti-women’s-right-to-choose,’ I think that misses some of the important disabilities rights issues that are being raised,” said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People With Disabilities.

Mr. Imparato said he was disturbed to learn recently that in several states with legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights, groups like Planned Parenthood often lobby for an exemption for women who learn their child would have a disability.

But he said that the person who alerted him was a Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was herself troubled by the tactic because it seemed to run counter to the progressive political agenda that supports both choice and tolerance of human difference.

“You’ve got these two basic liberal values on a kind of collision course,” said Rayna Rapp, an anthropologist at New York University who has studied attitudes toward prenatal testing.

Ms. Rapp argues that it doesn’t need to be that way. One solution, she said, is to make sure the world is a more welcoming place for people with disabilities. Other disabilities rights advocates emphasize the need to educate prospective parents about the positive aspects of raising disabled children.

Still, social policy may be unable to sway a seemingly strong personal preference for avoiding children with perceived genetic defects. About 90 percent of women who learn they are carrying a fetus with the extra 21st chromosome that causes Down syndrome choose an abortion. Studies have shown that many women choose to abort for diagnoses of less serious conditions.

And a growing number of fertile couples are using in vitro fertilization to gain greater control over the genetic makeup of their children. Under a procedure known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, doctors screen embryos for a high risk of developing breast cancer or arthritis, and implant only embryos with the desired genetic makeup.

The questions may only become murkier if testing extends to traits like homosexuality or intelligence.

But Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line — even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. “We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say, ‘Here’s the line, firm and clear’ because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy,” she said. “You can never make that decision for someone else.”

The rhetoric of “choice,” however, can take on a more troubling resonance when it comes to selecting children with new reproductive technologies, disabilities rights advocates say. “It so buys into this consumer perspective on our children,” said Marsha Saxton, a senior researcher at the World Institute on Disability in Oakland, Calif., who is an abortion rights supporter.

With a new, more conservative Supreme Court, which has just upheld a law banning a procedure critics call partial-birth abortion, disabilities rights advocates say they fear that the reproductive rights movement sees such discussions only as an opening to abortion opponents.

“The fear is that this will be used as an excuse to limit women’s access to abortion,” said Sujatha Jesudason, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society, a nonprofit group promoting limits on reproductive technology. “But as these selective technologies are getting popularized we need to try to agree on a set of principles without giving up the fight for reproductive rights.”

If that doesn’t happen, some abortion rights supporters say they are worried that their opponents may hijack the discussion.

“Some religious conservatives say that they trust God to give them the child that is meant to be,” wrote Ann Althouse, a law professor in Madison, Wis., who identifies herself as an abortion rights supporter on her legal blog. “But isn’t there something equivalent for social liberals? Shouldn’t they have moral standards about what reasons are acceptable for an abortion?”’

In this article there is a woman who supports abortion rights, and after she found out her child would have down syndrome she still chose to continues her pregnancy. This article shows all the different arguments of the rights or wrongs about abortion: religious conservatives say that they trust God to give them the child that is meant to be, I thought it would be morally wrong to have an abortion for a child that had a genetic disability, As prenatal tests make it possible to identify fetuses that will have mental retardation, deafness, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a range of other conditions, such personal deliberations….etc

It brings up the question in politics of what are the fundamental basics that abortion rights should be based on? Your morals or your religion or what the president thinks perhaps? This is something I really want to look into for my article.

Blog# 13: Life-The Book!!

Immediately when I saw the paper, Genetic Screenings was leaping off the page at me! I have a bunch of iddeas I guess..here they are:

• If parents-to-be find out their child-to-be has some genetic abnormailty, will they decide to have an abortion? Is abortion good or bad? Who, what, when, where, and why do people have abortions.


• for the intro describe the setting of the parents to be at the genetic screening for their baby to be and everything goes perfectly well but what about those who have babies to be with genetic mutations? what happens to them?


• Talk about how genetic screening precedures work!


• who, what, when, where, and why were genetic screenings made!
  
• statistics about how many people get them, how many who get them turn out to have no abnormalities compared to babies who do have the abnormalities.
  
  So this stage could either be pregnancy, or adulthood depending which viewpoint I take.

Another thing that interested me was the part about childhood Diabetes: Insulin repreduction. During my SLC Brandon talked about how the bio-tech industry extracts the cells that create insulin and let them mass produce insulin. I forgot exactly how it works, but it really struck me as a clever way to go about creating more insulin. This is relevant today because there are children with Diabetes, type one as well as type two, who have diabetes. Some of them are born with it because their bodies aren't sufficient in producing insulin, but others have it beacuse of uncontrolled eating. If I have to write about this, something I could look into is statistics about the fats and sugars in food and should the govt make higher taxes on them since people are just eating whatever junk is easy and in demand. The science involved would have to be how the Bio-Technology Industry extracts the cell or whichever part of the body that creates insulin to mass produce insulin.


If I had to go to last resort, I would write about steroids. I know that they are illegal and people use them for an inhanced growth rate when they need to bulk up for some type of sporting event or just to boost their own ego's. I think it might be cool to talk about the way that steroids affects the horomone levels that you would naturally have and cause mood swings and whatever else they may cause. I could talk about why steroids has been banned and how people go around the rules by saying that its not steroids because it has some other ingredients even though it actualy is steroids...this is something I'd have to do a lot more research on..and I'm not exactly very interested in learning about steroids and how they work. I really do want to learn more about genetic screenings though!