Summaries-Collegekid9

Free Heroin to Battle Addiction

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world

It seems counterintuitive that the best way to treat a heroin addict is by giving them the heroin. The heroin epidemic in Vancouver has been around for a while now. The free heroin program has only been given to those who show little to no chance or having a recovery from their addiction. This program is also preventing many home burglaries.

Is PTSD Contagious?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ptsd-epidemic-military-vets-families

It seems counterintuitive that we as a nation allow every day people to join the military where they are exposed to harmful environments. Many of these environments can put a strain on the soldiers which may impact both their physical and mental health just so that they can protect other people.   The problem goes beyond a soldier’s state of mental health and spills into the lives of the people around them.

 

Summaries – nyctime7

Does Using Paper Take CO2 out of the Environment?http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/paper-carbon-dioxide-sequester

It seems counterintuitive to produce paper to combat global warming, as an alternative to trees. It is believed that one of the main causes of global warming, is the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is one of the components of photosynthesis, used by trees when producing oxygen. You’d think an easy fix would be to stop planting trees right? Well since we as humans require oxygen, simply ceasing the growth of trees isn’t a wise option. What about paper? Once a certain amount of oxygen per tree is produced, cut down said trees by making more paper! Unfortunately, paper is just as bad, if not worse for the environment than an actual tree.

Cutting down a tree doesn’t eliminate carbon dioxide, thus creating paper isn’t foolproof. Paper actually holds on to carbon similar to the same way a tree does, with the exception of oxygen. This means as long as paper isn’t burning or begins decomposing, it’s effectively storing carbon. What people don’t often know, is that paper doesn’t store carbon for long periods of time. On average, paper can store carbon for 2-3 years before it starts degrading. More often than not, this occurs in landfills when paper isn’t recycled. Unfortunately this results in methane, a gas more potent than carbon. A tree which usually lasts for decades, is a better carbon sink than paper which has a much faster expiration date.

 

Men Defining Rape: A History

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/men-defining-rape-history

It seems counterintuitive that a man can define the specifics of rape for a woman. For thousands of years, men have created the laws and decided whether or not a man was raped. These laws were created on the bias that a man was greater than a woman. In many cases, the woman was seen as the “bad guy” instead of the victim. How would the man feel if the show was on the other foot?

The idea that a man is better than a woman has existed for many years. Some of the first laws are prime examples of this. In 1780 BC, it was actually considered property damage for a man to rape a virgin woman. Since when was a woman property? A man is receiving reimbursement for “property damage”, while the woman gets nothing, besides the prize of being seen as an object. As time progressed, woman were no longer seen as mere objects, but were still misunderstood. For centuries, it was believed that a woman could not conceive without giving non-verbal consent. The notion that a woman has the ability to shut down her body to prevent being raped is insane to me, yet it was another belief shared among the same men that created rape laws. It’s obvious that some men throughout history had both a bias and disconnect from women, so they shouldn’t have controlled their lives.

 

Free Heroin to Battle Addiction

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world

It seems counterintuitive to provide an addict with the very substance they’re addicted to. When a person has an addiction, it’s customary to get them as far away from said substance as possible. To do the exact opposite is quite puzzling at first, but makes sense with all things considered.

Studies show that some people are beyond the help of traditional addiction aid. These people exist everywhere, and little can be done to stop them from becoming problems for society. An alternative to letting addiction spiral out of control, has taken place in Vancouver. As a sort of “damage control”, heroin is prescribed to addicts, but only in severe cases. Addicts who would otherwise be disturbing the peace, or further harming themselves, become members of a safe zone, Insite. They are provided with free heroin, as well as clean place and instruments to use. Though the root of the problem isn’t being fixed, the effects are effectively being neutralized, leaving the streets of Vancouver safer.

 

 

Summaries-31Savage

Corruption in Figure Skating Judging

I seems counterintuitive that the number of corrupt judges  increased in the Winter Figure Skating Olympics after the International Skating Union prevent cheating by making the judges scores anonymous. Judges were giving higher score to skaters from the same country as them. This was bad for the Olympics. The International Skating Union figured if they kept the judges anonymous they wouldn’t cheat. Their plan didn’t work as they thought. The number of corrupt judges went up 20%. Judges began cheating more because they didn’t have the pressure of people knowing what score they gave a certain athlete. This is counterintuitive because the plan they thought was the solution actually increased the problem.

End-of-Life Care

It seems counterintuitive that end of life care help hopeless patients live while hurting hopeful patients by exhausting resources and money. End of life care is the financial care used for people that are not likely to live long without treatment. Families find it hard to let go of their loved ones that are dying so they tend to prolong the treatment. While the treatments are being prolonged money and resources are being used up. Some doctors are at fault for exhausting these resources as well. Sometimes doctors recommend many treatments that only prolong the suffering while keeping the patient alive. This is helping the helpless patients but not the patient that can actually benefit from the treatment. Between the families and the doctors many resources are being wasted.

Free Heroin to Battle Addiction

It seems counterintuitive that doctors in Vancouver are providing heroin to heroin addicts to ‘help’ them. Heroin is a drug that kill many people everyday. Doctors are suppose to help us stay healthy. Their reason for giving out heroin is because they rather give addicts heroin before they commit a crime to get the money for the heroin. If a addict is high off the heroin they provided commits a crime did the doctor actually help? They provide the heroin like it is a regular drug prescribed at the doctors. Doctors should find a way to get them completely off the drug instead of giving it out for free. Giving the drug for free is simply killing the addict with the help of a doctor. At the end doctors are not helping at all. They don’t seem to be worried about the health of the addicts they just want the crime rate to drop.

Summaries – scarletthief

Surviving the shower – That Daily Shower Can Be a Killer

It seems counterintuitive that simple chores and seemingly harmless everyday acts, such as showering, could be seen as hazardous and life threatening, but it’s the little things that may one day do us in.

The natives of New Guinea acknowledge how low risks can lead to death and act accordingly by sleeping in clear fields away from dead trees which can fall down during the night. Are they just being paranoid or is their attention to low risks justifiable? To most the possibility of dying by being crushed under a dead tree is 1 out of 1,000, but the New Guineas live each day as if it might be that 1 in 1,000 day.

Their well practiced habits to watch out for repetitive low risk (but of course still very risky) situations can be considered “constructive paranoia.” The New Guineas aren’t the only people in the world to embody this attitude. Pilots who have lists and lists of safety regulations and checks are just one example of being careful and meticulous to avoid the 0.000001% chance of dying by something that can be avoided by practicing such methods and avoiding the danger altogether. How can you die by sleeping under a dead tree if you never slept under the tree in the first place?

Americans tend to not think like the New Guineas do because of the availability of doctors, police officers, and 911 dispatchers. Also, we tend to underestimate the possibility of ourselves being in a life threatening situation. Take for instance, getting in a car crash. A young driver may think “It’ll never happen to me. I’m a careful driver,” and the parent may  think “It’ll never happen to my child,” but the risk for getting into a car crash is still out there and often times happens when one least expects it to. A risk is a risk, no matter how small the risk is.

It is important to remain alert for these type of  low risks that are often underestimated. I’m not saying to go through life paranoid that you can die by tripping on the sidewalk, or slipping in the shower, or getting crushed beneath a tree. Just to be vigilant and aware of the surroundings in order to lessen the chance of this day being that 1 in 1,000 day.

Do Toms shoes help anybody? – Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?

It seems counterintuitive that by trying to help provide shoes for a kid in Africa by participating in a buy-one-give-one program  we are either not making any significant change to their life (as they already have shoes to wear), or worsening the local shoe company’s market.

By providing free shoes, food, and other goods to people in other countries that we believe need the provisions, we are actually making the locals dependent on the foreign organizations providing the free goods instead of the countries’ local governments and businesses (shoe stores, clothing stores, food markets, etc.). The perfect example would be the Haitians after the Haiti quake. Haitians began to rely on NGOs for the services and goods that could be provided by the Haitian government.

One company, Two Degrees Foods, is able to truly aid the people we intended to help with our “good deed” by working with the local industries of a country to identify malnourished children. They then contact the food manufacturers so the manufactures can produce food appropriate to the country involved.

Wanting to do  a good deed by donating food and other goods like shoes isn’t a wrong thing to want. However, if by donating goods to a country’s we are essentially hindering the country from advancing and relying on themselves, then is the buy-one-give-one program really a good idea?

What Other People Say May Change What You See

It seems counterintuitive that people are given freedom of choice, but are ultimately influenced by social pressures to unconsciously conform to the majority’s choices.

Experiments have been done to see the effect of social conformity. One experiment, first conducted by Dr. Solomon Asch, is when test subjects were shown two cards. The first card had one line on it and the second card had three lines of different lengths on it. The subject had to decide which line on the second card matched the line on the first card. However, before the subject made their choice, they witnessed several other “subjects” choosing the same wrong line. The other “subjects” who went before the real subject were actors meant to impose peer pressure on the real subject. Surprisingly, 3 out of 4 subjects agreed with the actors’ wrong answer at least one time, and 1 out of 4 agreed with the actors’ decisions 50% of the time.

Why would they choose the wrong line if they know it’s wrong? Researchers discovered that seeing isn’t believing, but seeing what others (the majority) want you to believe. Using MRI scanners, researchers discovered that when agreeing with the majority on a wrong answer, the subject is doing so unconsciously (no brain activity in areas that show conscious decision making).

Social pressure is very real and very influential to how a person can perceive the natural world and make important decisions. Conforming to the social majority is sometimes easier, but isn’t standing firm with one’s decision more important? It is imperative for people to become aware of the social pressure and its effects because most of the time, they don’t even know they’re affected.

Summaries-Philly321

Is PTSD Contagious?

It seems counterintuitive that we allow ordinary individuals to enter harmful, chaotic environments that ultimately affect both their physical and mental health in an effort to protect other people.  And to then assume, that after they endure life altering events, that they will either return to their former lives or even maintain a normal, healthy lifestyle without any effect upon their family members.

Secondary traumatic stress develops with people who have a close relationship with someone who has fallen victim to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. While Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is not physically contagious, the mental impact can develop on a day to day basis in the form of hypervigilance, which is an increased level of anxiety that causes someone to be vigilant of his or her surroundings. The problem goes beyond a soldier’s state of mental health and spills into the lives of the people around them.  They can develop similar symptoms subconsciously via exposure to loud, disruptive behavior.

Over 30 percent of the spouses of soldiers diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following the Vietnam War were diagnosed with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder. More recently, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has nearly tripled in size due to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.  Consider the growing number of spouses and other family members who have been exposed to or are expected to be compliant with those who have been diagnosed with this disease. These people need to be supportive and need support for themselves at the same time. Sadly, this situation is frequently one-sided in favor of the soldier diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

It also seems counterintuitive that the U.S. Army only assists families of active-duty personnel. They currently do not take action to treat the side effects associated with being in an unpredictable environment, often for more than one tour of duty, that can cause a spouse or child to inherit similar characteristics. It is expected that families can withstand the secondhand effects from war and grow into normal, functioning people. The U.S. Army’s narrow-mindedness and lack of expanded focus and funding has allowed for an increase in Secondary Traumatic Stress by thrusting bilious soldiers into a house, which often results in a negative, distressing environment for the people around them.

Nevertheless, the United States of America prides themselves as being protectors of their country, but neglect to support and understand, or even acknowledge, the families who face the actual consequences of war without any moral and mental support.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ptsd-epidemic-military-vets-families

The Cruelest Show on Earth

It seems counterintuitive that many wild animals are forced into captivity, removed from their natural habitat, to become a human spectacle on the premise of profit and amusement. Then, those same animals are expected to perform in the same way repeatedly without showing any signs of unease or unpredictability. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what is happening.

When Kenny, a three-year-old Asian elephant, passed away in a pool of blood following a show held by Feld Entertainment, it was discovered he did not die of natural causes. Kenny was cleared for his show even after showing signs of blood loss and discomfort.  His handlers disregarded federal regulations requiring that a sick elephant must get prompt medical attention and approval by a veterinarian.

The people of Feld Entertainment viewed Kenny more as an item, while pushing the animal to a dangerous level, to imply that he was only good for the money he brought in. As usual, we fail to see the beauty that these animals possess by virtue of our power over them, only to enhance our lives by abusing them and forcing them into an act they had no business being in.

Imagine what we ask of these animals when we make them perform through outrageous, life threatening illnesses. We insist that these forms of senseless enjoyment are worthy by purchasing tickets to a show than we neglect to take into consideration the overall well-being of the elephant because our personal satisfaction has been met. Kenny’s blood is on our hands.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/10/ringling-bros-elephant-abuse

The Surprising Science of Happiness

It seems counterintuitive that happiness can be attained through a negative, life altering event on the basis of our mindset to persevere, to fully believe, by allowing ourselves to achieve serenity and be able to accept the lives we are given. However, that exactly what is happening.

A survey was introduced to both people who won the lottery and to others who have become paraplegic. The survey required both to talk about their overall happiness a year after their experiences and their answers were exactly the same; they were both happy. The survey, perhaps, was given to engage our minds and transform the way we view a certain aspect of life. While being paraplegic is certainly frightful, they were forced to look at their disability in a positive light rather than drown in their own misery.

The Impact Bias is the tendency to overestimate the hedonic impact of future events. That means that our brains allow us to predetermine the effects of something and avoid it to maintain a healthy, effective lifestyle. What does it mean if we cannot avoid the situation? The purpose of the Impact Bias is to force people to think about the other side of picture and to help cope with an event such as living with a disability.

We expect paraplegics to be unhappy based on their inability to perform normal activities and assume that a life altering event has one side and leads to a variety of damaging side effects like suicide and depression. Happiness lies in the mind of someone who is stuck in a position where all they have left is to be positive. Yet, we remain a country who disparages the idea of positivity by slapping a label on someone who is supposed to be miserable, but has used their situation as a source of happiness within itself.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy#t-180598

Summaries- Beyonce1234

The Choice of Shoes, a Mirror, or a Marshmallow

The Mirror of Dorian Gray:

It seems counterintuitive that a choice a person makes can define someone’s personally traits. Apparently, a certain way a person parts their hair defines some of the character traits. If it is on the left, one is most likely to be more vocal and logical. If the part is on the right side, the person is more artistic and visual. We only see our selves one way when we look in a mirror. We see exactly the opposite of what everyone else sees. One day, the author of the article, bought a special mirror. This mirror is called a True Mirror.

It is only true because the reflection is how people really see things. When someone looks into it, they can see how other people see the part in their hair or their bodies. It is mostly impossible to do anything but look into that mirror. What ever direction a person does, the mirror will show the opposite. It would be a miracle if someone completed their makeup or done their shaving right without a disaster. A man named Dorian Gray came up with this new mirror.

What Does the Marshmallow Test Actually Test?:

It seems counterintuitive that people would wait to eat a cookie, at least for me. No one could ever go wrong with cookies. But really, it’s pretty counterintuitive that a test like this can discover what kind of motivation people seem to have. That test goes like this… there was a man named Walter Mischel, and he made an experiment for his nursery-school students. The students had a couple choices in this experiment. They could choose to either, pick a treat out of a cookie, a pretzel, or a marshmallow, or if they waited 15 minutes, they can choose a forth treat. What Mischel found was that the students that actually waited those 15 minutes were over all better students. They were the more patient and motivated students than the ones who choose to pick one of the three snacks without any waiting.

A new study, and more in depth, experiment has been done by Celeste Kidd. What she did was that she took the same concept but with different age groups and with different points on interest with that age group. She used three-to-five year old for her experiment. The kids had two choices, which was to keep the dull, used crayons to draw or wait 15 minutes and use a new 24 pack. The experiment was basically split half and half, but half of them were told that there was no new pack of crayons.

Right after, Kidd tried to marshmallow experiment. More students this time decided not to wait because they figured there wasn’t going to be a new treat for them in the end. In the end, Mischel’s experiment seemed to focus more on the student’s self-control rather than determination. Kidd’s experiment focused on how the children live at home and how much logic they really have.

Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?:

It is counterintuitive that we shouldn’t trust what businesses and companies are telling us. It has been proven that the Tom’s shoe company has not been telling the full truth about giving shoes to the children of Africa. For the young Americans today, that sounds like something so saint-like, of course I want to buy a pair! I don’t want any African child with out shoes! What kind of person would I be if I didn’t buy these shoes?! A gullible person, that’s who.

In reality, the student’s of Africa already have shoes to go to school in because the schools give them shoes if they don’t. But don’t get me wrong, these children should get as many pairs as they can, like all of us have. The thing is, Tom’s is making it seem like if they don’t donate a pair of shoes, the children will be deprived of their education, which isn’t the truth. A company lying might not come as a surprise to most people because that’s how the world apparently works now-a-days, but Tom’s shoes shouldn’t get all the praise they are getting for their “charity work.”

Summaries- dragon570

1.) How football helmets fail to protect against some of the most dangerous hits:

It seems counterintuitive that the NFL helmets can stop a player from getting a head injury or even worse a concussion. Their isn’t a helmet out there that can say “It’s 100% concussion proof.” NFL helmets do help in a way, but people could still get injured.

The NFL helmets right now only protect from skull fractures and also, puts cushion to a players head from a direct hit. The NFL has made a rule that players cannot hit helmet to helmet or it’s results in a fine and maybe the player is ejected from the game. Football players that don’t have a concussion are at risk of a disease called neurodegenerative disease. Having neurodegenerative disease can result in memory loss and other major symptoms.

When I was looking for an article on Football helmets I came across an article that said we shouldn’t have football helmets. That took me for a loop seeing that even with helmets players can get injured. Having a helmet is a must in any sport that involves physical contact.

Industries are trying to add more padding inside the helmets to see if that could solve the problem. Padding doesn’t help if someone gets hit on the side of the helmet which could cause the head to twist/rotate. Direct hits probably aren’t the dangerous hits it could actually be the side hits that could be more dangerous.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/5/10919146/nfl-football-helmet-head-injuries-safety-protech-vicis

2.) How earbuds damage the ears:

It seems counterintuitive that listening to music can hurt our ears. Parents and elders always say “Turn that music down or you’ll go deaf.” In high school I would walk down the hallways and hear peoples music, whether it was their headphones or earbuds.

Nowadays, in school mostly everyone owns a pair of earbuds/ headphones and has used them at least once. Earbuds can cause major damage in hearing and not a lot of people know their hearing is lessening until it’s to late.

Their re some ways to prevent hearing loss. People could put the music on 60% instead of 80%, 90% or 100%. We only can have it at 60% maximum volume for 60 minutes. It maybe lower than the usual percentage we have our music on, but it will save our ear and us in the long run. If people continue having their music out loud in their ear can result in them having to wear hearing aids.

http://kidshealth.org/en/teens/earbuds.html

3.) The Real Reason College Tuition cost so much:

It is counterintuitive that college tuition would stay the same amount as it was when we first entered our freshman year. Back then tuition was from what people made with the money they got from their summer job. however, society has changed and now colleges ask for way more than what people make in one summer job, especially if they’re working at a place that only pays them minimum wage.

Inflation in our society is causing the tuition to go higher. Public universities like Rowan University was a little under $29,000 for 2015-2016 academic year. Exactly, one year later it increased to a little above $32,000. That’s a $4,000 difference that can break someones pockets. The more tuition goes up the more student have to take out loans to pay college off.

It’s like a domino affect because the public funding is getting cuts every year and a way for public universities to “keep their heads above water” after the funding cuts is to increasing the tuition every year for students. By that happening, students have to apply for loans and as a result of getting loans is having to pay them back and that can result in credit scores going down if they don’t stay up with their payments.

 

Summaries-belladonna98

1.) Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?

It seems counterintuitive to tell people not to buy shoes from a company that donates to the underprivileged, but that is exactly what is happening. Toms claims that for every pair of shoes (and now glasses) purchased, a pair is donated to someone in need in the developing world. We don’t know where, exactly, and that is part if the problem.

There are many businesses that follow the same charitable model as Toms, that is, for each item bought, one is donated. Among these are WeWood and Smile Squared, which plant trees and donate toothbrushes, respectively. This business model is, at best, a risky one, because the companies rarely research how their “aid” is going to affect the economy of the area they are supposed to be helping. For example, after a tsunami in Indonesia in 2006, the country was overrun with rice donations, which destroyed the local market for rice. So it doesn’t seem like many people who make these donations really think about what they’re doing. But not all aid is harmful, it just has to be well thought out.

One would think that with all this controversy, Toms would be eager to show just how their “get-one, give-one” program works, but the opposite is true. The Toms website only vaguely describes their donations, focusing more on convincing their customers that they’re doing good rather than how they’re doing it. So my advice, with all the possibility for error in this business model, would be to refrain from buying Toms until we have all the facts. That way we know we’re not crippling shoe merchants when we buy our feel-good charity shoes.

2.) 4 Ways Everyone Can Benefit from Therapy

It seems counterintuitive to suggest that healthy people attend therapy. But what is mental health, really? Everyone has moments of neuroticism and no one is perfectly healthy. It’s absurd to believe that everyone couldn’t benefit from taking some time to talk out their issues with a professional. Everyone, yes everyone should be in therapy.

            There are four main benefits that therapy has on an individual’s life, even though the positives are endless. The first is help with dealing with emotions – any emotions, from the stress of everyday life to the loss of a loved one. Therapy (and also life coaching) also holds a person accountable for their goals. Once you tell someone something, it’s out in the universe and you are more likely to stick to what you said. Speaking of the universe and the big questions, therapy can help answer them. Professionals are literally trained to help you solve life’s biggest problems and find meaning in your life. This doesn’t mean you have to have an issue-filled, meaningless life before therapy, but everyone has moments when they feel like their life is just that. Why would anyone want to be without resources in those times of need?

There is also a social stigma that prevents people from going to therapy, especially in the professional world. Often we who go are seen as weak and in need of guidance. I personally have lost a job opportunity for mentioning therapy during an interview. But the only way to de-stigmatize therapy is to actually go to it and see what it’s all about. The road to understanding could actually help some people along the way.

In essence, therapy is basically like getting a master’s degree in being a person. If my own experience coupled with outside research has proven anything, it’s that everyone, even the rainbow-filled, happiest people on Earth, could benefit from it. Societal standards be damned, people who go to therapy are just regular people who talk through their issues on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. So even if a person thinks that they have the perfect life with the perfect brain, they should consider taking the plunge and see what they’re missing out on. It could end up changing their life.

3.) Men Defining Rape: A History

It seems counterintuitive that men have so long defined something that has affected mostly women throughout history. Since the first ever written laws in 1780 BC, there have been laws, made by men, defining what is and isn’t rape. Men have controlled women’s bodies through their political power for centuries, and wrongfully so, leading to the conclusion that the law is not always morally right.

            When men still owned women in the time before the birth of Christ, rape was considered property damage against a woman’s father. This evolved into having to pay a father to compensate for rape. Rape also referred to abduction of a woman, regardless of the abductors actions. There are also ridiculous amounts of other definitions that rely on whether the woman was a virgin, a woman of color, or if she was married. In any case, the woman was almost always at fault.

And then there are the laws about pregnancy. Since 1290, men have been saying that a woman cannot get pregnant if they did not enjoy a sexual encounter. In fact, this argument was made as recently as 2012, when Todd Akin declared that a woman cannot get pregnant if her attacker has committed a “legitimate rape”. But of course the definition of a legitimate rape is always changing, and said definition is always made by men.

These men who are making these laws have always been notorious for a lack of understanding of the actual situation. Non-scientists always seem to speak the loudest when discussing pregnancy and are almost always listened to. But these laws, by most people’s moral compasses, are not actually lawful. They are prejudiced opinions of men who want to be able to rape their wives whenever they want (which was legal until the 1990’s, by the way). The only way to combat this is to look at the only logical conclusion; lawmakers are not perfect, and because of this the law is inherently flawed.

Summaries—theshocker69

  1. Who Gets Priority When It Comes To Transplants?

We are raised in a society where we learn that all lives are precious and equal. So it only seems counterintuitive that our hospitals would seem to worry about the lives of adults more than the lives of children.

If a 10 year old child is put on an adult waiting list for an organ, they are automatically put as the lowest priority. Even though she is a deathly ill patient, she is treated as the lowest priority. Why is this age distinction necessary if no one life is greater than another? As of right now, there are over 100,000 people waiting on organ donation lists with a new person being added every 10 minutes. Every day, 79 people at the top of the list receive an organ while 18 people die because they didn’t receive one. So what are the odds that this 10 year old child, at the bottom of the donation list, will receive the organ that she needs?

To choose who get’s priority on the adult list, doctors weigh how physiologically compatible the organ is to the donor, the donor’s medical urgency, and estimate how long they will survive after they receive their organ. For children, priority is chosen by who has been on the list the longest and who has the strongest match.

If we are going to preach equality and talk about how all lives are equal, perhaps we should take the time to practice what we preach.

2. Do Tom’s Shoes Really Help People?

We all know the company “Tom’s.” They sell shoes that will fall apart after a month, but for every pair of shoe they sell, they give away a pair to a child in Africa. This sounds great, until you learn that they’re doing it for their own gain.

Tom’s says that their shoes promote education. In most Somali schools, you are not allowed to enter unless you have shoes. Tom’s makes it sound like without them, these children would not be able to attend school. However, these schools also hand out shoes to children, a majority of who already own shoes. Upon first glance, Tom’s seems like they are doing the right thing, but upon closer inspection, it is quite clear that the company only wants your sympathy for sales.

It seems counterintuitive for a company to lie about the charity that it delivers. However, although it may not be ethical, the technique that they utilized definitely is the reason they are where they are today.

3. Belgium: Senate Approves Measure Allowing Doctors to Euthanize Children

It seems counterintuitive that we would allow governments to make decisions regarding our own body. You must believe that you don’t own your own body and that the government has better insight into what you should and shouldn’t do. It’s not illegal to eat nails, but that can kill you. It is not illegal to drink battery acid, but is that what is standing in your way?

It also seems counterintuitive that we would take healthy people who have never been in the shoes of the painfully, terminally ill. This is like a real-life fallacy of authority. When it comes down to it, there are many terminally ill people in the world and they’re not all above 18. The representatives in Belgium are so caught up on the length of time the patients have been in the world. They don’t think about their quality of life, or even how close they are to death.

When we think of age, we think of how many years it has been since the day we were born. However, what if we were able to know when we will die and we based our ages off of that? These children’s quality of life are extremely low, they’re very close to death, and they have healthy people telling them to deal with it. Age is merely a number, no matter your age, you can still feel the same pain as someone older than you.

Summaries-Phillyfan321

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/econundrums-do-vitamin-supplements-work

It seems counterintuitive that multivitamins could not have positive benefits. As a kid my Mother made me take multivitamins because she told me they would help me grow and keep me healthy. But today with so many super foods being sold at grocery stores, it may be unnecessary for someone to take a multivitamin. One example would be that with the new popularity of organic fruits and vegetables, it may be unnecessary to take in more vitamins. Taking too many vitamins can also have negative effects on someone so for everyone to take a multivitamin everyday might not be a smart idea.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world

It seems counterintuitive that the best way to help heroin addicts is to give them heroin. Heroin has plagued Vancouver for many years. This problem is not something that recently emerged. This free heroin is a form of so called “damage control.” It is important to note that doctors are not prescribing free recreational heroin. This “free heroin” program is only for those who cannot and will not recover from their addiction. It is not uncommon to hear on the news that a drug addict broke into a home or robbed a store trying to get drug money. Keeping these people content can prevent many of these burglaries. Giving heroin to addicts may seem like a bad idea at first but everyone should look into the idea before they dismiss it as illogical.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831725/
It seems counterintuitive that parents would have a reason not to vaccinate their child for polio. Polio is a devastating disease, being vaccinated against it should be something every parent wants for their child right? Well many people in Nigeria were boycotting the vaccine in 2003 because there was a rumor that Western countries were putting the HIV virus and cancer causing agents in the polio vaccine. Some people in Nigeria believed that the Western World was against Islam. While there was no evidence of this, it was enough to persuade people not to want to get their child vaccinated. This rumor prevented parents from getting their child vaccinated and it is such a shame for someone to have polio today because it can be prevented with just one shot.