At What Price, Immortality

Transhumanism has become very common in the world. To be a transhumanist means to encourage the development of technologies that would prolong one's lifespan to perhaps more than one hundred years more than the average life expectancy. Transhumanism is a movement in which individuals are implanting the idea that technology should advance in order to help with this process of expanding one's physical, intellectual, and psychological capacities. The flaw behind this movement? Transhumanists believe there is no essence of nature that should be respected or preserved; that nature itself is entirely flawed. We, as humans, should (the transhumanists believe) are already going into the path in creating regenerative medicine to a post-human future for all, which means becoming what Margaret Somerville calls "techno-sapiens." However, we would no longer be human. We might lose ourselves in the process and become "machines" of the future. Transhumanists argue post-humans will be more ethical and moral than present humans, the wars and conflict will cease, and so on. If immortality would become such a major "trend" in society, what chances will there be for later generations to take on as the present generations are still alive?

Although feared by many, what role does death play in the human life cycle? Is it an important one?
If you had the chance, would you like to become a "techno-sapien"?

Senators Question Deals to Block Generic Lipitor

US Senators have asked the drug maker Pfizer and five other health companies to detail their agreements to block prescriptions of generic versions of the cholesterol drug Lipitor and sell only the Pfizer brand-name version. Doing this is an effect from the ending on the Lipitor patent and now the senators wish to have the government regulate the drug to promote the general welfare. Although by selling one generic brand of drugs, it would make a less competitive market which would stimulate profit and be more available to public access. However, it is feared that this can cause a monopoly on the lipitor market and cause Medicare, and other healthcare programs to reply on Pfizer corporation where they must pay their prices.

Is it a mistake to allow government regulation over such a drug? do the drugs pose as a danger to society?

Publicly Insured

This article dealt with doctors refusing to make appointments to publicly insured child patients. Two out of three publicly insured child patients were refused an appointment while only eleven percent of privately insured child patients were refused. Publicly insured patients who were given an appointment also had to wait an average of forty two days compared to privately insured patients who waited an average of twenty two days for an appointment.

Is it against "doctor code" to deny a patient treatment and/or attention based on whether or not they are privately insured?

Turn on, tune in and get better?

This article is about scientists finding new uses for hallucinogens and street drugs for study of legitimate therapeutic uses, such as helping patients deal with post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction, chronic pain, depression and even terminal illness. They believe these agents have the potential to help patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, drug or alcohol addiction, unremitting pain or depression, and the existential anxiety of terminal illness. In their next incarnation, these drugs may help the psychologically wounded tune in to their darkest feelings and memories and turn therapy sessions into heightened opportunities to learn and heal. Researchers explored the usefulness of hallucinogenic agents as an adjunct to psychotherapy in the 1950s and '60s. But allegations that hallucinogens were used in government-funded "mind control" efforts, freewheeling experimentation by proponents like Dr. Timothy Leary and the drugs' appeal to a generation in revolt quashed legitimate research for decade. The thaw has been slow in coming. In 2008, Griffiths co-wrote a report in the Journal of Psychopharmacology comparing psilocybin with a placebo for people dealing with incurable diseases. Psilocybin resulted in "mystical experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance," according to the study, the first since 1972 to explore a hallucinogen's therapeutic value.

The question is--
Is it worth it to use hallucinogens and street drugs, for legitimate therapeutic uses? Does it really benefit and help society as a whole?

A Chinese practice ...without consent, say what?

In China, there is a practice of transplanting organs of the deceased, executed prisoners. However there is a twist, they were not informed (while still alive) of what doctors and others may do to their bodies. This strips people of their basic human rights.

Questions to consider:
- Sound familiar?
- Although this is considered a "barbaric practice," the practice is not wasting such life-saving organs. Is that still wrong?

The Case for Enhancing People

This article talks about inevitable enhancements in the near future as science marches on. However, the type of enhancements are a huge concern, as the reasons behind getting such a leg up on other people aren’t very virtious in most regards. But today, we currently enjoy a longer life span and better health (in general) than we did in the past. Would that be considered that bad of an enchancement?

Should there be enhancements? If so, what kind and why? If not, why?

Medicare to Pay for Obesity Counseling

In addition to providing the elderly with low-cost health insurance coverage, Medicare will now pay for obesity screening and intensive behavioral counseling. This has been set up to combat obesity in persons aged 65 or older. While some people are pleased about this, many experts in medical fields say that this program won't come through with many benefits, critiquing that if these types of people are obese when they reach old age, there will be little hope for them to break this habit.

Should Medicare be allowed to cover additional costs even though it is running out of money to support those aged 65 and over?