Nick's Blog

After the conference, I have decided to change my topic to focus on a specific subgroup within the African American population -- African American women. This topic discusses the racial disparities that are present surrounding the topic of postpartum mortality (death related to pregnancy). As I was doing a search on Google Scholar, I used keyword search to look for articles relating to "racial disparities" and "pregnancy". I managed to find a journal from the National Institute of Health under the National Library of Medicine that perfectly addresses this topic.  I find this source particular helpful because it is an analysis of pregnant women in the United States over a span of 9 years, their mortality rates and how they correlate to race. I will use the statistical evidence, such as percentage of race as well as Pregnancy Related Mortality Ratios, to support my argument. Specifically, I will argue that seeing a large disparity between white and black Americans mor...

The ethnic group I am writing about is specifically African American people. Racial discrimination has been an issue deeply rooted in the history of the United States of America. It may be a sensitive topic to address, but the history of slavey and its prominence in the US has led to the sole cause of the systemic racism embedded in the world today. Specifically I want to address the lack of access that African American have to quality healthcare and health in general. It is an issue worthy discussing about because of how commonly it is addressed, yet little positive outcome it has attracted.  Black people have been been known to reside in poorer, less accessible, more dangerous neighborhoods  -- which in turn is correlated to the worse access of education, jobs, food, and healthcare. These social determinants factors ultimately compound and all affect the mortality and morbidity rate in these environments.  Through research, I want to find specific data regarding black p...

 Through extensive research about this topic, i'm leaning towards having the patients rights taking precedence. In the occasion where a patient is unconscious and unable to give proper direction, a doctor should not take the risk of making legal mistake. Breaching the official DNR orders open doors for the doctor or the hospital receiving legal backlash -- possible lawsuit. It is unfair for a doctor to intervene on a patient's last living wishes or their rights for resuscitation, regardless of their critical condition. However, it definitely is understandable if the a doctor undergoes procedures that prevent irreversible damages to the body and brain.  Why the patient's rights takes precedence is because when considering patient autonomy, it does not only apply to following the DNR order. In previous situations, they may have filed an official DNR order, but it should be confirmed on whether or not they still remain that same mindset with regards to the present situation....

 This topic is one that addressing the controversies and dilemmas that physicians face when the patient in critical condition has a "Do Not Resuscitate" tattoo on the body. In the medical world, the patient rights not to be resuscitated is a decision that they can chose by themselves. This typically requires patient consent and I assume the signing of certain waivers and documents. In this aspect, it addresses the patient autonomy to make any decisions they want for themselves. On the other hand, when an unconscious patient, wheeled into the emergency department, appears and requires critical treatment, what are the doctors supposed to do? The simple oct of not doing anything goes against the doctors medical ethics pillar of beneficence -- Doing good. It's a doctor's job in the emergency department to treat patients and save them in the such situations. So is the doctor supposed to save this person, or not? This topic is one that affects the rights of the patient, the...

From being fully paternalistic to allowing individuals to make their decisions on their own, I am choosing to take a position somewhere near the center, leaning towards the more paternalistic side. I chose this because the nature of vaccine mandates require governments to implement an order for the benefit of the community. Vaccines for COVID 19 has been proven to minimize the severe symptoms from this virus as well as decrease the risk of contracting the infection.  The strength of this argument comes from the basis that we vaccinate so that we control the spread of Covid 19 to other people. Having individuals vaccinated boosts the immunity for contracting the virus, and thus preventing other immunocompromised persons from contracting it as well. Covid is a new virus circulating the world so, excluding those genetically immune to the virus, the spread of it is much faster than other current viruses. The government sees that the best way to slow the spread of the virus is by mandat...

 The topic I am addressing is the issue of vaccine mandates. The debate about government intervention with regards to vaccine mandates is not new. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought forth a new wave of vaccine mandates. This essay is going to describe the extent in which governments should intervene with personal health choices. The articles I chose does a pro/cons about what the benefits of getting vaccinated is, while also bringing up counterarguments about how government should respect the persons individual health. While it may be beneficial for the community, it is still a controversial topic that we can not fully cover.