Through A Narrow Chink: An Ethical Dilemma :: essays research papers

Through A Narrow Chink: An Ethical Dilemma In 1951 Carl Djerassi, with the Mexican pharmaceutical company Syntex, developed the first oral contraceptive by synthesizing and altering the natural hormone Progesterone into a superpotent, highly effective oral progestational hormone called "norethindrone". Admittedly, the dynamics and importance of this find were astounding, since before this the only means of contraception was abortion, and even that was not legalized at the time. The race to produce this synthetic agent was highly competitive, being sought after by many pharmaceuticals throughout the world, and for a small fledgling company in Mexico of all places to find it first only added to the excitement of the achievement. Yet aside from all this excitement and competitive fervor something great and disturbing was being bypassed. Science, in my view had done something great without looking into the possibilities of where this would lead. I believe Djerassi, similar to most scientists of his day, was so entranced by the excitement of synthesizing his product and achieving his goal that he did not stop to think of the ramifications of his accomplishment. The ethical dilemma was not explored before hand, and this to me is the great tragedy of most scientific discovery, since I firmly believe each scientist is responsible for that which he creates. Djerassi does confront a few questions of ethics and morality after the fact. On page 61, in chapter 6, he reflects on the argument of the use of poor Mexican and Puertorrican women for preliminary experiments. Is this just another manifestation of exploitation of the poor? Djerassi says absolutely not. Yes, the poor our the initial guinea pigs for research but this is no different from what dentists, barbers, and young surgeons do. All of these groups use the poor to hone their skills, not because of the poor women's ignorance but because middle class, suburbanite, white women are unlikely to volunteer their services for the sake of science. My main problem with this is that he claims they will not "volunteer" their services. Of course not, they are aware of the possible detrimental effects of such experimentation. This is obviously because they are probably more highly educated the poor Hispanic women. Poverty often precludes a lack of good schooling and education. Thus the awareness of such a group to scientific studies will most likely be much lower. They probably knew nothing of scientific research at all, let alone how to read a consent form that leaves them without legal recourse. Djerassi mentions this as well, the idea that he can not offer them consent forms because they can't read. That seems preposterous to me! If he can not inform his patients of the possible side effects then what

I’m the King of the Castle †with close references to the text discuss the relevance of the novel’s title Essay

â€Å"I’m the King of the Castle†: with close references to the text discuss the relevance of the novel’s title. This novel tells the story of two boys who, basically, are at war with each other. At first, it is hard to understand what the point in them being at war is. There seems to be no special prize for the winner, and it is hard to find any goal which they are aiming to achieve. However, what is evident , is that there is a strong drive to war behind one of the boys, and this rubs off on to the other boy has he tries to counteract. ‘I’m the king of the castle†¦ and your the dirty rascal’ This is well known children’s playground saying. It is said by a child who finds himself in a position, where he perceives himself standing higher, than any other child around him. This saying is usually just passed off as a bit of child play. However, I believe that it illustrates a natural instinct amongst humans. And, as a dominating theme of this novel is human instinct, we can see that there is a relevance to the title. The human instincts that are illustrated are, the desire to have their own home and space, where they are free to do what they like, and also to acquire territory. If you take a look at almost any history text book, you will see that wars dominate. The whole of human history is riddled with wars. Wars have become landmarks in the history of civilised human society. All these wars, all these lives lost, stem from one thing, the instinct among humans to acquire territory and the instinct among humans to defend and not to back down. Not to back down, from invaders, persecution or oppression. Susan Hill demonstrates this in her characters, Kingshaw and Hooper , in ‘I’m the king of the Castle’. At first we read about Hooper. We read about his family history, and about Warings, a house which is part of the Hooper family history. Hooper didn’t think much of the house physically. â€Å"It was an ordinary house, he thought†. However, we go on to learn that there were aspects which he did like. â€Å"the idea it was his, the idea of family history, pleased him† This statement reflects a lot about Hooper. It shows that he likes owning things, he may like the feeling of being superior, ruling over places, having his own home, his own territory. This is shown , in his reaction , when he learns that Kingshaw is coming to stay. † ‘It is my house’, he thought , ‘†¦I got here first’ † . Hooper’s territorial instincts are revealed, when he immediately resists the idea of Kingshaw coming to stay in his house and shows a dislike for him , even though he has not met him- thus starting a conflict situation from the beginning, a typical human reaction. Hooper views Kingshaw as a threat- a person who could take from him. Kingshaw finds a piece of paper, upon which was written in bold capital letters . â€Å"I DIDN’T WANT YOU TO COME HERE â€Å". From here on , Hopper treats Kingshaw with disdain and resentment. We learn that Hooper confronts his unwanted guest , ‘Hooper said, † why have you come here?† ‘ By saying this Hooper strongly suggests to Kingshaw that he is not wanted . Not only did he treat Kingshaw as an intruder into his house, Hooper also wanted to assert a superior position as the king of his castle . â€Å"‘When my father dies,’†¦ ‘this house will belong to me, I shall be master'† The statements by Hooper to Kingshaw shows an clear relevance to the title of the book because effectively, Hooper is saying â€Å"I’m the king of the castle†. ‘I’m the king of the castle ,your the dirty rascal’ this is also a game played by children. Hooper , sometimes seems as though he is playing games with Kingshaw, almost like he is using him as a toy, or scoring points every time Kingshaw is made to feel bad by him. He tries to find different ways of insulting Kingshaw, putting him down, scaring him, putting him in situations he doesn’t like, and generally making his life unpleasant. We see a number of examples in which Hooper succeeds in doing this. In Chapter X we read about how Hooper alleges to Joseph Hooper, Hooper’s father, and Kingshaw’s mother, Helena Kingshaw, that Kingshaw was to blame for his injury. Hooper claimed that Kingshaw pushed him while they were in the woods together. â€Å"It was Kingshaw, it was Kingshaw, he pushed me in the water.† This is in fact completely untrue. His bruised head was caused by an accident on his part. By saying this, Hooper is trying to make Kingshaw feel unwanted. This is one example of the tactics he uses in the game he is playing with Hooper. An other example of how Hooper scores points over Kingshaw, is by making him feel inferior. This is done right throughout the book. In Chapter VI, Hooper talks about Kingshaw’s mother , as a servant to Hooper’s father, that Kingshaw is simply the son of someone who works for his father. He even says â€Å"she [Kingshaw’s mother] has to do what my father says, and that means you have to do what I say† That would either make Kinshaw angry, or feel inferior, probably a bit of both. Hooper would definitely have felt that he had got one over Kingshaw in any case. The title , is also relevant because we also know that Hooper behaviour reveals his concept of territory and possession is strong. He expects to succeed to his fathers house , after his fathers death, and as owner of the house, he will expect to be obeyed and that people will do as he says. Hooper also enjoyed drawing up plans for battles to defend his territory, for example, we learn that in Hoppers bedroom , † ‘ the battle charts with its coloured pins and flags and symbols , was propped up on its easel. On the table were Hooper’s long lists of regiments..,† ‘. We are reminded again that ownership of property , makes people like Hooper feel important, like a king in his castle, ready to defend at a moments notice. Conflicts and wars often start with fights by kings over the ownership of castles and territory . In conclusion the title of the book , remained relevant throughout the story ,through to the end , when Hooper eventually got the better of Kingshaw , who in the end took his own life. Even then Hooper saw this incident as a triumph, just as a king in his castle might do , if he had won a victorious struggle. We read that Hooper discovers Kingshaw had died , and then † ‘ Hooper thought suddenly , it is because of me , and a spurt of triumph went through him† ‘.

Generation Me by Jean Twenge A Reflective Response

Reflective Response to Generation Me In the book, Generation Me: Why todays young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled and more miserable than ever before, author-researcher Jean Twenge explores the nature of the Generation Y, people who were born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The phenomenon that Twenge sought to explore in detail was how the Generation Y became the Entitlement Generation or, as she eventually coined the term, the Generation Me. From the title itself, she described the Generation Me as a group of individuals who are confident, assertive, entitled but miserable. Indeed, the books thesis highlights how the youth of Generation Me are highly individualist and primarily centers on the self. As in the words of Twenge,  ¦GenMe doesnt just question authority we disrespect it entirely (28). This statement ultimately sums up the GenMes attitude and viewpoint about respecting institutions, traditions, beliefs and values that held previous generations and societies together. The books argument throughout reflects these general yet substantive statements about the GenMe and its culture of self-centeredness. However, this attitude was also a result of generations of improving the quality of life for the previous generations children (who became part of the GenMe culture). Even Twenge acknowledged the role that history played in the development of GenMe, as she recalled that in the 1980s, society had deliberately sought to increaseShow MoreRelatedStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesSpiritual Organization 530 †¢ Achieving a Spiritual Organization 531 †¢ Criticisms of Spirituality 531 Global Implications 532 Summary and Implications for Managers 533 S A L Self-Assessment Library What’s the Right Organizational Culture for Me? 512 glOBalization! Face Culture, Dignity Culture, and Organizational Culture 515 Myth or Science? â€Å"Employees Treat Customers the Same Way the Organization Treats Them† 518 An Ethical Choice Designing a Culture of Ethical Voice 526 xviii Read MoreManagement Course: Mba−10 General Management215330 Words   |  862 PagesWork of Mary Parker Follett If F. W. Taylor is considered the father of management thought, Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933) serves as its mother.26 Much of her writing about management and about the way managers should behave toward workers was a response to her concern that Taylor was ignoring the human side of the organization. She pointed out that management often overlooks the multitude of ways in which employees can contribute to the organization when managers allow them to participate and exercise