Hormone Replacement Therapy

When women reach menopause, there is a decline in their sex hormones such as estrogen and progesterone which causes various symptoms such as the mood swings, hot flashes, insomnia, decline in bone density, urinary tract infection and etc. This is where hormone replacement therapy is used to replace these hormones. Hormone replacement therapy is replaces the sex hormones the body no longer produces and by doing so, hormone replacement therapy relieves the symptoms of menopause.

The benefits sound good but the problem is that HRT has side effects as well. It’s difficult to say whether the costs of HRT outweigh the benefits or the other way around. Data have shown that hormone replacement therapy increases the risk of conditions such as heart disease, stroke, blood clots, and breast cancer. Yet, other than the relief of menopausal symptoms, hormone replacement has benefits such as maintaining skin collagen levels due to increased estrogen levels, fighting against osteoporosis, and boosting short-term memory.

In my opinion, choosing to do hormone replacement therapy depends on the patient’s condition and health history as well. For instance, the benefits may outweigh the risks if the menopausal symptoms are severe and they really interfere with daily life. In that case, if the women are healthy, HRT may work great for them and relieve them of the burden of their symptoms. Also, hormone replacement therapy may be beneficial to women with severe loss of bone mass (osteoporosis).  However, women who are not in good health or have reached menopause at a later age in their life, hormone therapy may have more risks than benefits and they should find alternative options.Because of the side effects, I think that hormone replacement therapy would not be healthy however if used over a long term. The body naturally stops producing the sex hormones, so by synthetically increasing them, the homoeostasis of the body would be affected. 

I believe that in the future more risks and side effects with the hormone replacement therapy may be discovered. People are becoming more educated about the consequences/ side-effects of health related procedures and that's another reason that less women might choose hormone replacement therapy in the future. However, this may cause scientists to research healthier solutions to help with hormone imbalances.

Psychopaths

We are afraid of psychopaths because they have no qualms about hurting other people. Discuss.

I agree with this statement. I think what makes psychopaths so scary is that they are unpredictable and it's hard to know what's going on in their mind. We are also afraid of psychopaths because they have a higher potential to cause harm because they are fearless and have no emotional attachment to others. Therefore they are capable of actions that other people are not capable of. (For example, like the man who murdered women and made furnitures with their skin). In addition, they are so difficult to detect as they are very good manipulators and have strong logic skills. For instance, a lot of criminals have psychopathic traits which means that they have a higher chance of being released from jail due to their masterful manipulation. Furthermore, psychopathy is an incurable mental illness and it is not possible to change the behaviour of psychopaths which is also a reason that makes them scary. Psychopaths are able to easily blend in with other people so we are scared of the fact that there are psychopaths around us that we are not aware of and we are also afraid to be a victim of their manipulation.

I also think that part of our fear of psychopaths comes from the way they psychopaths are always portrayed as violent in movies and media. It's true that psychopaths can easily become violent due to their lack of empathy for others, but most psychopaths don't act violent for no reason. As discussed in class, it's important to note that not everyone with psychopathic traits is a criminal or a violent person.

Parkinson's Disease

Treatment for Parkinson disease often hinder impulse control in human, therefore patients living with Parkinson disease should NOT be medicated.  Agree or disagree?  

I disagree with this statement. Parkinson’s disease is progressive, which means it gets worse over time. Medications help improve symptoms and therefore they should be used for Parkinson's disease because without them, over time the symptoms of Parkinson's disease would become severe. Although the medications have side effects such as hindering impulse control and muscle spasms, they can relieve or control many symptoms of the disease. Therefore, the benefits of medication outweigh the side effects. 

The muscle spasms and the lack of motor control (the condition known as Dyskinesia) are a main side effect of the most widely used and successful Parkinson's drug called carbidopa-levodopa (also called L-dopa). Parkinson’s disease is caused by the slow deterioration of the nerve cells in the brain, which create dopamine, a natural substance found in the brain that helps control muscle movement throughout the body. In order to increase dopamine, the goal of L-dopa drug is to converted to dopamine in the brain. Treatment with drugs is usually started when symptoms become disabling or disrupt a person's daily activities.  

L-dopa is just one of the drugs used for Parkinson's disease; there are other medications depending on the patient's condition and the stage of the disease. There is no cure for Parkinson's disease yet, so medication is the only hope for patients to cope with their disease.With medication, the patient would have a chance to perform their daily tasks with a bit more ease and this can increase the quality of the patient's life. There is not evidence strong enough to justify avoiding a treatment that is highly effective for most people. In most cases, medication for Parkinson disease is recommended once the symptoms are severe enough to interfere with daily living.

Sleep..

High school students are sleep deprived, therefore less homework should be assigned to them. Agree or Disagree?

It's quite hard to choose a side for this question... I could definitely use more sleep and less homework... On one hand, I want to blame my lack of sleep on homework; but I also know that homework is essential for student success, especially high school students. So I think there are two sides to this issue.  

One reason homework is good, is that teenagers are generally easily distracted and they are not disciplined enough to do all the studying by themselves if no homework was assigned. Therefore, students need enough homework to understand and learn the lessons and prepare for tests. For instance, if I didn't receive all that load of math homework to practice, I would have probably failed my tests. Furthermore, homework is not the only factor that results in sleep deprivation in students. As mentioned, we students are very distracted (by things such as social media, Internet, TV, etc.) and sometimes a simple task takes longer than it should to complete because we don’t yet have the time management skills. Hence, we end up not finishing our homework on time and pulling an all-nighter.

While I believe that homework is very beneficial, I think that maybe some areas of daily homework should be lessened. For instance, sometimes certain assignments and projects are too time consuming and have unnecessary aspects that don’t really relate to the topic being studied in class; such as making the assignment “pretty” or doing a project on something that does not contribute to the understanding of important topics. For example, sometimes I finish the most important part of the project, which is research and application, but spend a vast amount of time on making a poster. In this case, I feel that part of the project could be cut as students would have a chance of just focusing on the application and purpose of the project itself and not the unnecessary time consuming parts. In addition, another problem is the distribution of the homework load and not necessarily the amount. Often teachers assign a large load of homework at once. Personally, I have that one week (each month) when everything is due from all my four courses which then of course leaves me sleep deprived.

It's especially important for youth to get enough sleep. So I think if teachers try to distribute the load of homework as evenly as possible and negotiate deadlines with students, then students would not be sleep deprived (or not as much) and they would still receive the amount of homework needed for success.

        

                                                            

The Cancer Genome: Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is one of the most widely used methods that is used to treat cancer. Chemotherapy drugs target cancer cells and destruct and slow down their spread.
                                 

Advantages:

• Remission of cancer cells.
• Delays the recurrence of cancer. 
• Slows down cancer progression: chemotherapy keeps cancer from spreading, slows its growth, or destroys cancer cells that have spread to other parts of the body. 
• Relieves patients of caner symptoms: chemotherapy shrinks tumours that are causing pain or pressure. 
• Chemotherapy prolongs life span of patients by slowing down the spread of cancer cells and often remission of cancer which allows patients to get back to their normal lives. 

Disadvantages: 

• Chemotherapy has various side effects: hair loss, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, neutropenia (low white blood cells), anemia, loss of appetite, bowel movement problems, mouth sores, etc. 
•  Treatment schedule: depending on the severity of cancer, daily or weakly treatments may be required. 
• Treatment costs: chemotherapy can be very costly especially if the patient requires long term treatment. 
• Chemotherapy does not cure cancer but only puts it in remission.

I don't think chemotherapy is an effective "cure" to cancer however, chemotherapy is the best treatment available so far with the limited range of treatments for cancer. Chemotherapy has serious short term and long term side effects and basically it poisons the body. Also, chemotherapy is considered successful if there is a five year survival period, meaning that there is a high chance chemotherapy would not work. From the discussion in class, there is the possibility that chemotherapy might be actually what kills cancer patients sooner. It is not an easy decision to make regarding whether to go through chemotherapy; all the factors have to be weighed. It depends on the stage and type of cancer. If the cancer is at an early stage or the tumour is easy to remove, then chemotherapy may be a good decision because there is a higher chance that it would be successful. However, if the cancer is severe, and there is not much time left, it may be best to spend the remaining time at home with loved ones instead of suffering through chemotherapy. It also depends on the age of the patient. With young people, chemotherapy is worth the risk and suffering because they have so much more to experience in life and their bodies may be stronger. in old/elderly patients, I think it's best to not go through chemotherapy so that they can enjoy their last years of life. Sometimes, undergoing chemotherapy is not even about yourself, it might be for others such as family and friends whom you want to fight for and survive no matter the pain. It's hard to make a decision, because at the end, chemotherapy gives the patients some hope of survival. 

Fast and Furious: Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

 
Discuss the significance of iPS cells in stem cell research. Do you believe it would be better to use replace embryonic stem cells with iPS cells despite the success embryonic stem cells already have? What are the advantages or disadvantages? What problems do you think could occur with the usage of iPS cells? And how do you think we can solve these problems?

IPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells are very significant in stem cell research as they have great potential in regenerative medicine without the controversy associated with embryonic stem cells.  IPS cells which are reprogrammed from somatic cells are pluripotent cells with the ability to self-renew. These cells can be taken from any body part and can differentiate into different cells to create the tissue that is needed. A significance of iPS cell technology is that it allows creating cells that are genetically tailored for a patient’s need which reduces the chance of immune rejection. There has been more research on iPS cells in recent years; however, embryonic stem cells are currently safer and more popular. Looking at the advantages of embryonic stem cells, there is more knowledge on embryonic stem cells and they currently have a higher success rate. However, the technology of embryonic stem cells raises an ethical concern since most embryonic stem cells are from human embryos and many people believe that life begins at conception and that performing research on embryonic stem cells is morally unacceptable. iPS cells provide a less controversial way since they don't deal with destruction of an embryo. Also, iPS cells are cheaper and easier to use than embryonic stem cells since they are taken from our own body. I think it would be beneficial to invest more on iPS research and practice but not to completely replace embryonic stem cells with iPS cells because embryonic stem cells might have some benefits that iPS cells do not have. I think that with more research done on iPS cells, they might become more successful or as successful as embryonic stem cells in the future.

There are risks associated with iPS cells. For instance, iPS cells are associated with cancer and they can potentially trigger the expression of cancer causing genes. The abuse of iPS cells is another problem as well. Since iPS cells allow regeneration of tissues, humans might start to neglect their bodies and health (this is if iPS cells become very cheap). Any new technology has the potential problem but I think iPS cells are more beneficial as they hold potential to cure disease and repair damaged organs.

Human Synthesis?

Discuss about the possibility of making an entire human being with the technology we have today. What do you think of it? Would you be able to accept an entirely synthesized human? What are the consequences? Do you think science has a limit?

With the fast advancements in science, it's not a rare possibility to make an entire human being in the future; but the technology is not there yet. Creating individual organs may be possible but human body is very complex and putting together these organs and tissues  in a way that they function properly is still too advanced for us. I think if this significant achievement was made, it would be something to be proud of. However, I think that society would not be ready to accept an entirely synthesized human due to the ethical controversies that would arise. Society has difficulty accepting people with differences as it is, so it would most probably struggle with considering synthesized humans equal to natural humans. Personally I would not be able to treat an entirely synthesized human like a natural human no matter how hard I tried because I would know they were not conceived in a natural way and the way they were synthesized goes against nature.

So why synthesize a human? What is the purpose? Would this human be used as an experiment subject or slave? Would this human's life be valued? There are many consequences tied to this idea. Synthesizing a human being is not beneficial to people and there is no purpose to do such thing.  Making an entire human being brings ethical and religious controversies in society. Moreover, It's not just the ethical issues in society that would be created, but also the synthesized human itself would be affected too. The synthesized human would have emotions just like all other humans and he might develop serious psychological and identity problems. Also, there are health risks associated with synthesis of humans as the synthesized human could have defects and therefore go through additional pain and suffering. Furthermore, the money and time spent on synthesizing humans could be spent on other research that is actually beneficial to society.

Science is unlimited as there is always something to be discovered. What limits science are the human capacities and societal ethnics. I believe science needs these restrictions as they are essential in preventing society from destruction. We are responsible for where we apply our knowledge and its consequences. We should decide the right limits on science by considering the consequences of our scientific knowledge.