Careful Commentary

The Ears have been listening and they've been piqued to a comment on my previous article that was left by a colleague - The writer of Politically Texas.  Her view was positive but critical and raised some points that I thought I should justify as well as others that were legitimate writing concerns!  Firstly, to address what I would consider a legitimate writing concern is the obvious lack of and introductory paragraph that summarized my intent.  I do believe that my mini-essay could (and should) contain an introductory paragraph that briefly expresses my position.  That being said, another contention was the length of my article and I believe that this requires justification.  The length of my article is primarily due to the substantive nature of the journal article I reviewed.  The article I reviewed was a concise neonatal medical ethics overview; since we are not in a medical ethics course, I thought it was pertinent to discuss the nature and context of the argument the author puts forward.  Also, the author's background is a salient feature of the article.  The article is not written by a science academician or even a healthcare professional.  This changes how the article reads substantially and makes it that much more powerful.  Normally such a thing would detract from the author's credibility; however, she has done considerable research and is well respected in the neonatal-ethics community.  If I had left these pieces out of my review it would have severely detracted from both my argument and my credibility.

Regarding length I believe an overly dense piece of writing detracts from its quality.  It is more important to analyze what an article says, the point it makes, and how concisely it can make that point.  

This is DW signing out!

Babies, Babies, BABIES'...Rights?

DW Signing on for a late night incursion into the ethical grey zone that is maternal rights.  Although not in the typical way that you might think.

Today I will be advocating an argument also touted by self-taught maternal rights expert/ethicist Helen Harrison.  Helen Harrison has written several articles that are featured in Neonatology Journals, The New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics' Journals and various other journals of medical repute.  My primary source for this discussion is an article called The offer they can't refuse: parents and perinatal treatment decisions.  This article can be found in most academic databases (for you students out there) as part of the journal Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine (2008 issue 13).  Helen Harrison is involved in neonatology as the result of a premature and medically complex birth (she was the mother) in which ethical decision-making played a key role.  Due to her, perhaps, the hardship associated with that experience she decided to do what we all do when faced with adversity - become ridiculously well-informed and self-taught experts in other people's fields (*crickets*) what? nobody?  Just her?  Well...that is precisely what she did. Helen Harrison is a maternal rights ethicist with a focus on practice.  In this article, she primarily discusses maternal rights that become compromised when health concerns complicate fetuses that are in the "gray zone".  The gray zone is an area of development where viability and survival rates are either scientifically untenable or the cost of rearing such a child are severely burdensome on the family.

The problem here is that parents are given little, if any, choice to decide if they want to undergo extremely costly and, from the evidence-based practice standpoint, sometimes futile treatments.  Statistically speaking the children have likelihoods severe developmental disablement.  Harrison's ethical argument presents information in an evidence based format and balances physician paternalism vs. patient autonomy and non-maleficence and beneficence.  These are several of the main ethical theories used to analyze most medical and healthcare decisions (other ethical issues look at cost vs. outcome but that doesn't come into play much here).  We'll look at paternalism vs. autonomy in a moment.  For non-maleficence and beneficence, this is the theory that states can we do good and not do harm.  In short, Harrison argues that the harm or good, as it were, is ultimately up to the parents to determine (not society); because, once the child has left the neonatal intensive care that child is the parents burden.  Parents have a right to know what kind of outcomes are likely for their children if they undergo certain treatments and weigh their options.  Regarding paternalism and patient autonomy we have to understand that in some cases we must defer to the physician for guidance (and as patients we like to do this) but that the parents (or patients) should be the ultimate arbiters of an informed decision.

This leads us right into our proposed solution for this problem which I find disgustingly elegant!  Her solution, now get this, is to, during prenatal visits and check-ups, actually inform parents of this gray zone birth range and outcomes of forced deliveries during that time; give them the options of what can be done and what the EVIDENCE BASED outcomes of various solutions are; and let them sign an advance directive for their unborn fetus.  Its so elegant I could hang myself.  Advance directives are part of hospital admission packetsand are given to ensure that if something happens we what lifesaving measures you (as a patient) want.  Why can't we do it for fetuses?  I say fetuses on purpose because word choice is quite important.  Fetuses are distinct from infants, which are distinct from young children, which are distinct from teenagers, which are distinct from adults.  We, as humans, make chronological distinctions in language because there is some understanding that any given thing has undergone a change.  I strongly believe that when people try to use the word children to describe an embryo or a fetus - they are committing a lie...but that's a different essay ;).  I have digressed.  I believe, like Helen Harrison, that prenatal advance directives should be standard of care of all prenatal physicians and neonatologists.  It would eliminate dilemmas between mother and physician almost entirely.  Few solutions are as elegant.  Nothing missing, nothing extra.

I am in full favor of it.

This is DW...Signing off!

Ridiculous Religious Rhetoric

The Ears have been listening and I must say what they hear is quite interesting.  DW signing on here with what I hope is a transcendentally titillating commentary on work by colleague Daniel Payne of Manufacturing Texas.  Mr. Payne brings up an interesting point in his article (hyper-linked over yonder).  The issue of religions' pervasiveness in our history, despite my own views, is unavoidable.  Up until a certain point in our recent history the majority of cultures and societies seem to have been founded with some kind of God fearing majority holding sway.  That said, as Mr. Payne points out, this is not our primary focus.  What appears to be the focus, if I am understanding what you (Mr. Payne) are saying, is more of an issue you have with religious rhetoric.  I believe you're looking at religious rhetoric and thinking that it actually has meaning.  While I would immensely enjoy the comfort that having a politician say what he means would provide I recognize this not to be so.  I whole-heartedly believe that Governor Perry is talking out of his ass.  He knows his constituents (how can he not, he's been in office for so long).  He is like a circus ringleader ramping up a crowd before a freak show.  He knows what buttons to push, what levers to pull, and in what order.  The way he parses his languages is incidental in this case.  I would hardly get my feathers ruffled at the swearing of oaths upon the bibles, the abdication of our destinies to God embossed into our coins, or the fact that the President (whom I like) ends some speeches with "God Bless."  It's just rhetoric and most of the time I believe it to be just that.  It must be picked apart and chopped down to understand the true meaning

This is not to say, however, that I believe all rhetoric is just harmless rhetoric.  I find it truly fearful when you find people who believe their own extreme language (which they may have learned by example or may genuinely believe - lets look to Mr. Green for example here).  It is difficult to tell if these people are entrenched in their own delusions and truly believe what they are saying or if they are high-commitment con-artists.  Language and ideas are dynamic reflections of each other.  Language affects ideas and ideas affect language.  This brings  us to the question - at what point is the way you have framed your ideas (the language you use to give them shape and form; moving from the abstract to the concrete) detrimentally affecting the idea itself.  This is a question that would do well to be applied to more than just ridiculous political rhetoric.  

Unfortunately, I believe there is a threshold for attention and I must bring this to conclusion.  All-in-all I believe that this article pertains mostly to meaningless rhetoric; however, I think that language we (as humans) choose our words, both consciously and subconsciously, and I find that people, if they listen, can often determine what another person is really thinking by listening to their word choice when they are speaking comfortably (not in a speech setting).  This kind of attention can often lead to terrifying realizations.  You may actually hear what a person is saying - the effect can be sobering.  

This is DW, signing off!

Planned Parenthood Persuasion

Greetings and Salutations humans!  Here we are on the ante-election day.  DW here with a tidbit of information that some may deem propaganda-esque in nature!  I’m going to discuss my view on the pulled funding for Planned Parenthood (PP) in Texas.  I believe it was a decidedly bad decision based on the ideological stance of a particular political party.

In summary, the Governor of the Glorious Empire of Tex- I MEAN of the State of Texas, decided not to accept federal funds for PP.  This is a real kidney-punch for PP.  According to Planned Parenthood's website almost 50% of their funding is from Government Contracts.  The withholding of funds is nothing if not a clear attempt to severely undermine and damage PP’s ability to operate in Texas.  What is the reason for all of this fighting and gnashing of teeth you ask?  It’s a matter ideology.  Those of us in Dr. Seago’s class know how riveting and adventurous an ideological battle can be. 

I can’t argue the morality behind abortion, the notion of conception, or ensoulment because I can’t bring myself to advance capricious, arbitrary arguments based solely on my beliefs.  What I can do, however, is point out that PP is not the fetus-vacuuming factory it is made out to be.  In fact, only 3% of the total services they provide are abortion related (FUN FACT: Some abortions are necessitated by health risks to the mother – The More You Know!)  PP’s primary function is to provide health care and prevention services to women.  Often these women are low-income women.  To provide some hard facts to support my argument I direct your permeating gaze to Planned Parenthood At a Glance.  Now I know y’all don’t want to actually READ the information so I’ll summarize: 770,000 Pap tests (that’s to check for cervical cancer people) provided each year; 750,000 breast exams per year (unlike the ones I perform in concert crowds, these exams ACTUALLY check for cancer); they also provide over 4 million tests for sexually transmitted infections; additionally they provide sexual health care, education, and information to close to five million people each year.  Abortion, the intended target of the attacks, is a tiny piece of the pie - A REALLY TINY piece.  Many hospitals also provide abortion services and I hear no public outcry to remove federal funding (or state funding for that matter) from their pockets!  The mere idea is laughable.  Why, then, does PP have this negative stigma attached to it?  Alas, this is a question I cannot answer. 

What Texas has done, in effect, is make a play to remove the primary family planning and education resource for people (cough cough low-income women and families cough cough).  And, for me, it is difficult not to see that act as anything but unethical.  The arguments to support PP are more focused on the services they provide whereas the arguments against PP are ideological in nature, focus on a single aspect of PP's services and overlook similar ideological breaches in other institutions.

Much like Pi, this argument is never-ending, I’m uncertain that we will come to a conclusion even in the near future; however, for now I respectfully step down off of my piney soapbox and bid you all adieux!

DW Signing off.

A Swift Critique of a Modest Gaff

DW – making an exuberant entrance!

Tonight I’m going to be reviewing a commentary on the previous (as in before today's) Presidential debate.  It was written by Eileen Smith of “in the Pink” (y’all can check out her commentary here à The Ties that Binder us).  I think in order to analyze this commentary we must perform a brief and rudimentary (that’s with a capital RUDE!) analysis of satire.  Satire is a form of rhetoric that uses sarcasm and irony to expose both faults and folly alike.  Often, political satire seems to be used as a means to expose particular portions of candidates’ rhetoric; perhaps, also, as a means to parse candidates’ language.  In that sense, Eileen Smith is accurate to a fault.  I enjoyed her article. Her unique, self-deprecating brand of satire is emotionally elevating.  I find myself jiggling with joviality.

Now, shall we crack down on critiquing? Eileen Smith, henceforth the ominously ambiguous – The Author, directs most of her rants to a particular brand of women and liberal folk; particularly folk with a sense of humor that are not violently offended by her tone and language.  In this sense, and in regard to this article, I believe she’s right on the money.  She addresses a gaff with appropriate accuracy and context (more so than most gaff-trackers).  The language in her ridicule is decidedly contra-Romney and would make any Solid Liberal coo with a pleasure.  

Because this commentary is highly subjective, credibility is not necessarily an appropriate tool with which to analyze this commentary; however, we can look at The Author’s credibility.  I will go so far as to say that The Author understands when it is appropriate to give her readers context and evidence so she does not appear to be whimsically and capriciously changing facts to suit her vile liberal agenda.   I think this behavior makes her more credible.  Her appropriate attention to those aforementioned details is a boon in her commentaries; it suggests a sharp mind and gives credibility to her articles. 

Logic is another questionably useful analytical tool (my toolbox seems to have some strange instruments inside of it!).  The nature of this article is that it follows a gaff.  I believe The Author's ‘logic’ is hidden in her satire.  You must ask yourself what information, or lesson, is she trying to impart to the reader?  I believe a very superficial function is to show us that some of these fields of work are still highly male dominated.  Most of Romney’s other language is just fluff – not much there after you parse it down.  On a deeper level her satire serves to demonstrate the weaknesses in Romney’s stance and the language he chose.  I believe her logic, or rather the flow of her satire, illustrates her point nicely.  I will be sure to read her commentaries more often and I recommend y’all to do the same. 

DW...Signing out.

Elucidating Editorial Expose

Greetings fellow colleagues! DW here signing on for an exciting and titillating editorial analysis.

Today I'm going to walk through some of the finer (and not-so-finer) points of an editorial called Texas Tuition Troubles.  Maybe I'm just a young whippersnapper but I'm not sure I'm following the idea of the editorial.  My initial perusal of several (editorials) showed scant cohesion and little, if any, background and research.  I suppose that's the idea - right?  Anyway I'm going to walk us through this particular piece which I found, at a minimum, interesting.

To begin, I noticed this (and several other) editorials have no author named in a clear way.  This makes it a little difficult to establish any degree of credibility.  This is not to say that a title or credible academic accomplishments confer expertise on any given subject, but naming yourself might offer additional strength to an argument.

This editorial essentially argues the necessity for increased attention on how colleges are funded.  In particular, the author focuses on cost-prohibitive tuition, funding colleges that produce the most graduates, and a few ways we could achieve higher graduate rates.  He/She argues in a non-cogent manner and barely makes a point by the end of the article.  Background information is scant to nonexistent.

Despite all this, I enjoyed the article and I think the author has a reasonable point.  Tuition costs are high, but so is the cost of running a high-level educational facility.  The argument requires, in my opinion, a more thorough analysis of tuition costs and facility overhead; however, I agree with the author that money to institutions should be affected by graduation rates.

That about sums up this short editorial.

This is DW signing off.

On Education and Life

Felicitous Felicitations readers!

This is DW signing on for my first post.  To start us off I'm going to post an article many of my readers may find relevant.  It is called Remember Your Debt and was written by Reeve Hamilton of the Texas Tribune.  Primarily, he discusses and summarizes a report released to the Texas Legislature titled "Balancing Passion and Practicality: The Role of Debt and Major on Students' Financial Outcomes."  The aim of the Mr. Hamilton's article is to encourage new (college) students to be mindful of their earning potential when choosing a major.  Hamilton also implores policymakers to make this type of data more accessible to students.

This is DW wishing you all a salubrious so-long!