Cogent or Fallacious 4

I wanted to step outside the box a little this week by looking at the other forms of multimedia.  After trying some of the more reliable sources I wanted something with a little more humor, so I tried Facebook.  It did not take me long before I landed on this story about a woman claiming that Disney was racist.  The claim is that Disney is racist because they only use white princesses.

The mere thought of this is wonderfully funny because all you have to do is go to Disneyland to see for yourself.  If you look at their employees you will see that white people are the minority.  If you look at all of the Princesses walking around you will notice Princesses Jasmine, Pocahontas, Esmeralda and Tiana, along with all of the others.

One man dared to go against this gal who most likely was a troll from some blog as defined by Eric Young.  He said that the main reason why we were seeing the Princesses white were because of Disney sticking to the authentic ethnicity of the story.  He related that Rapunzel is a German story; Frozen is a story by Hans Christian Anderson who is Danish.  The same can be said about Brave that was set in Scotland.  If we were talking about something else then Disney would have created it as so.  Oh wait a minute they did.

Based off of this woman’s reasoning her ideas and claim are completely fallacious and unwarranted.   The reasoning of the gentleman who wrote his rebuttal to her was cogent in the fact that if we were to take any ethnic story and make it real we would have to take the animals, clothing, plants, hair styles and even the wording of phrases into consideration.  By doing this Disney would make it more culturally correct.

Cogent or Fallacious 3

I was searching the internet earlier and found a heart warming article on Yahoo entitled "Michigan Officer Gives Young Mom Car Seat Instead of a Ticket" A public safety officer had received a call to intercept a vehicle that had a child not in her booster seat.

The law requires that children in Michigan stay in a booster seat until the age of 7 and this little girl was 5.  Officer Hall of Emmett Township, Michigan was going to give her a ticket for failing to have her daughter in a booster seat.  Alexis DeLorenzo the mother informed the officer that her car was reposed that morning and her daughter booster seat was in.  She said that her family was living from paycheck to mouth and that was all they could do for the moment.  Her friend was driving them around and did not Officer Hall asked her to meet him over at Wal-Mart where he purchased her a new booster seat and kindly gave it to her instead of the ticket.

I believe this story to be a cogent story that was originally aired on KTLA 5 news in West Michigan then later on many other media channels.  The officer also received an accommodation from his police department for his public service.  I was not sure if this was a made up story or not but after several media stations reported about the article with different interviews I found it to be cogent.

Cogent or Fallacious 2

As I was researching an article I came across this news feed on Yahoo news.  An article titled "First Whitewater prosecutor says 'serious crimes' were uncovered in probe" .  This article talks about the former U.S. attorney Robert Fiske who is publicizing his new book.  The book is about why he was let go from the investigation of Whitewater and because he was getting to close to the Clinton's and their connection to the  Whitewater scandal.

Robert details in his memoirs book about how he was actively going after several indictments as well as another attorney.  Fiske says he was replaced by a team of federal judges who were manipulated to find an escape goat.  He contests that yes there were arrests made but that there was not sufficient evidence for the arrests.  Robert explains that in his book he details the evidence and what the people were arrested for was insufficient.  Expressing that the individuals that he as well as another attorney were going to indict had more to do with the Whitewater scandal and would have implicated the Clinton's in the scandal.  Fiske says that the arrests were made to pacify the public and to stop inquiring about the Clinton's and their roles in the Whitewater mess. 

Fiske is hoping that the truth will come out before Hilary has a chance to run for the Presidency.  I feel that this is a fallacious story because he gives no evidence other than to buy his book as to why he feels so.  If this is so important and that he really wants the public to be aware of such an event, then why not disclose this to the media in one fail swoop.  He could still make his money from the interviews or a book deal.  But the most important thing is that the information would get out.  However, seeing as how he has not done this and is pushing his book then it cant be that important.  I do not doubt that the Whitewater scandal is fishy at best.  Even here in Utah I can smell the hypocrisy.  Neither the White house nor Fiske have disclosed all of the information.  Unfortunately  government from the beginning has always felt they were above the law and did not need to abide by the same rules as everyone else.  This scandal could have come back to so many people that covering it up is a possibility.  The truth is going to be in the middle of it all but I don't believe we will every know it.

Oppostion Constructives

The seat belt law is in place because seat belts do affect not just us but others. 

There is a claim that “The seatbelt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles”

We will return to this comment later but I want you to think about it as we talk about all the points that were brought up.

This articles premise was that the government is violating our personal rights.  Unfortunately it was taken from a testimony written by Erik Skrum.  Erik Skrum commented on behalf of The National Motorists Association.  He is a communications director, not a scientist nor a research analyst.  But a person who stands in front of people, trying to persuade by whatever means possible, to throw you off track.  He has no credibility other than being a spokesperson for TNMA.  For that matter The National Motorist Association is an organization design to stand up for driver’s rights and to fight against government, police and court systems.  Don’t take my word for it, it says so right in their credo.

The article of where so much of this misinformation comes from stats “A key component of our position regarding safety legislation is that such legislation shall "do no harm." No person should be compelled by government, no matter how well intentioned, to take action that harms themselves or others.” 

Where on Earth has a seatbelt ever killed a person?  Seat belts don’t kill!  That’s like saying that the seat belt got up, came over and strangled you to death.  Seat belts restrain provide control and save lives.

It could be argued that a person was trapped by their seatbelt when the vehicle went into the water.  However, what is not being thought of is the fact, based off of research.  That when a person goes off a road and hits the water if they were not wearing their seatbelt they would have hit their head and been thrown around the vehicle.  The loss of conciseness would make it impossible to escape.  But the individuals that were seat belted were aware of what happen and were able to unbuckle their seat belts allowing themselves to escape.  If a person is hit from the side they would be tossed to the other side of the vehicle preventing them from keeping control of their vehicle.  This example can be applied to a burning vehicle or being rolled down a mountain side.  The fact of the matter is that if your body is not strapped to the seat your head is banging against the windshield or the roof where it can either break your neck or kill you.  But if buckled you may have a head laceration or head concussion but it will help prevent unconsciousness.

Again Erik argues “There is ample proof, that in certain accidents, people have survived only because a seat belt was not used -- injured, perhaps, but not dead. In 30% of fatal accidents, where a person is ejected from the vehicle, the person remaining in the vehicle is the fatality.”

 My question is where is your documentation?  What was the certain case?  Because what the CDC says is something a little different.  It says “Seat belts prevent drivers and passengers from being ejected during a crash. People not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during a crash. More than 3 out of 4 people who are ejected during a fatal crash die from their injuries.” 

Now let’s go back to the opening statement.  “The seatbelt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles”

Then why is it that in only 51% of fatal accidents, drivers were wearing a seat belt?  Had the other 49% been wearing one more than 4000 lives would have been saved in one year.  Research shows that during the day time hours 45% of passenger vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not wearing their seat belt and during the night time hours the percentage increased to 64%.  On the flip side of that is the medical.  According to the CDC in non-fatal crash injuries resulted in more than $50 billion in lifetime medical and work loss costs in 2012.  The question I have for you is who gets to pay for that?  Who gets to have their insurance premiums raised in order to help pay for those?  Many insurance companies are changing their policies based on the claims that they will not cover any medical expenses unless the driver was wearing a seat belt.  Now to think of the little girl or other patient in the emergency room that now gets over looked because of the driver or passenger that thought they had a right not to wear a seat belt but are not critical.  I want to help impress the understanding of not controlling yourself inside your vehicle.  If you hit something at 15 mph when your vehicle stops your body will continue moving at a rate of 15 mph.  But at a speed of 30 mph you will hit at four times harder than that of 15 mph.  To put it another way it’s the same as if you feel three stories.  Sometimes we cannot control the first collision which is the initial impact.  But the second collision is where we keep moving.  Many times this is more fatal.

Now this leads me back to my original statement.  If the government decided to not jump in and mandate a seat belt law we would be faced with turmoil and issues that we as a nation are trying to avoid.  Things like

Loss of lives increases each year because of the speed limit and quality of vehicles

Insurance costs rising and claims being denied

Medicare and Medicaid costs rising

Health care workers not being able to attend sick individuals

Higher taxes

If we knew all of this then why are we not wearing them?  Seat belt laws benefit us in so many ways we don’t realize them.

Cogent or Fallacious 1

Tis the season when the weather starts to change and the leaves start to drop.  The air is filled with holiday spirit and germs.  We are entering cold and flu season and vaccinations are becoming a topic for discussion again.

Every year it’s the same thing when our kids are entering school, they need to be vaccinated so as to not spread or receive other illnesses from other kids.  Just like our kids the teachers are very vulnerable to these infirmities and so are required to stay current on their shots.  Health care workers are also required as part of their job requirements to be vaccinated.  

For me the article I found on NPR was a wise choice because of the emanate need that I have working at the hospital to be compliant.  Every employee bathroom has a sign in it stating that October 1^st starts our mandatory time period to be compliant.  Our email boxes are filled with newsletters talking about the need to promote vaccines to our patients and ourselves.  We at the hospital do not get the choice to elect wither or not we have to take it.  You either do or you don’t work.

I found this article to be a good in its reasoning in that effort that the medical/ health field is not doing a good job at educating the public when it comes to health concerns from vaccines.  I also agree with this ladies comments at the end that the best way to keep our children out of the Doctor office or the hospital is to do the recommended vaccines when they are required.

 

Because of this topic many co-workers as well as myself, have often wondered if we will get sick from all of these vaccines?  If the vaccines we are giving our patients will get them sick?  Will I lose my license to practice or be an escape goat for someone else policy?  But when it comes down to it, vaccines save lives.  I believe that from experience.  Sure vaccines have mercury in them and they have binders that need to be regulated much, much better then they currently are.  Yes there have been cases documented that this particular vaccine caused this effect or disorder.  But the truth is that if you look at the other types of health problems compared to vaccines, then it is becomes an issue of common sense.  Just like the article mentioned there are health concerns that should be addressed.  

The biggest concern people are having is the social media.  This runs even true for ourselves in the hospital we have to educate people more than we really should about the benefits of the vaccines.  However, the social media and all its conspiracy theories has really sent society on a tale spin as to why people are really getting vaccines or that we are just a few more flu vaccines away from turning into zombies.

 

I believe the idea that vaccines should not be used to be fallacious.  If you have a family member that contracted something because of a vaccine than I would look at what is in your DNA/chromosomes that have made you so susceptible to this disorder.  Just like certain individuals are more susceptible to cirrhosis or breast cancer.  Some people due to their chromes have a problem with sickle cell anemia and other infirmities.  But the benefits as talked about in this article far out weight those of denying yourself and your kid’s vaccines.

The first constructive

Thesis Proposition - This is a petition to change Utah’s suicide law to allow terminally ill patients with less than six months to live the ability and opportunity to terminate their lives with the assistance of a physician.

Issue A: Currently in Utah there is a law preventing suicide no matter what the circumstance are.  Utah should pass the death with dignity act allowing terminally ill patients a way out from their suffering if they so get to that point of their illness.

Claim 1: Patients should be allowed to die with dignity and on their terms.  Instead of having to suffer through pain and depression until they either commit suicide on their own or they die of natural causes.  Meanwhile their bodies erode and decompose tinting the air with decay and dead tissue right in front of their family members.  Patients lose their faculties of body and mind.  Their quality of life has no meaning due to the inability of leaving their death beds.

Warrant 1 and Grounds 1: 

a)      When a patient is diagnosed with a terminal disease many things run through their mind.  Family and fear of death are usually the first two things.  Right after that being afraid of the pain is next.  This law would allow people the choice, if they want to take it an opportunity to leave this world on their terms.  Having this choice from the beginning whether they use it or not allows them to have a nest egg for when they might need it. 

b)      Everyone is given the right to live but the definition of such right is not defined.   The European declaration of human rights stats the right not to be forced to suffer.  This is something that is currently being forced upon us right now.  If you have never worked in health care then you should volunteer some time at your local hospice service and watch the individuals that I am talking about suffer and writhe in pain wishing and praying for death.  Granted some of these individuals can manage their pain with medications.  Others manage it by being catatonic until the day of their death.  But we are talking about the individuals that cannot and the ability to choose a different option.

c)      Like most laws that have restrictions, people always find loop holes.  Right now when someone has been diagnosed with a fatal disease they are put on hospice.  This allows them to have huge quantities of pain medication, many times killing them from an overdose.  Unfortunately, this is either self administered or a family member has to administer the medications.  Watching the pain your loved one goes through aids in making sure that they are comfortable causing an accidental death.  This kind of death will cause guilt and family turmoil.  Also there is the matter of comfort measure performed either in a hospital or in their home.  Comfort measure means just that.  You make them comfortable and deprive them of everything else until they either starve or die from their disease.

d)     Currently there are seven countries that permit suicide due to medical conditions and four others that take them as a case by case basis.  In the Unites States Oregon and Washington allow PAS (Physician assisted suicide).  We would not need to reinvent the wheel. The idea of Physicians playing God or having too much power is thwarted by criteria that a patient must have to pass in order to qualify for such opportunity.

1.      The patient must be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself.

2.      Be diagnosed with a terminal disease which will result in the end of the patient's life within six months.

3.      Two physicians must agree that these criteria have been met.

4.       Both oral and written requests must be made with a timeline in between.

5.       A psychological exam must be met allowing for all ramifications and fears to be discussed.

6.       The patient must discuss with their family members their decision and why they wish to have this done.

7.       If the patient has not met all of these requirements then they are not prescribed the medication.

e)      Studies have shown that due to counseling given that the patience depression has been dealt with at a more successful rate as well as their pain management, especially since there are two physicians that have to answer to each other.  Not everyone uses nor needs to use this option.  None the less they have it available to them.  Those that have not had this either try to commit suicide on their own at 25:1 successrate.  This only causes more issues and problems to have to live with.

f)       Dignity as described in the dictionary is: a way of appearing or behaving that suggests seriousness and self-control: the quality of being worthy of honor or respect.  The Death with Dignity Act is a well thought out plan that is afforded to all those that meet the criteria.  This is not setup up for those individuals that are having a bad day because their cat died or because they lost their job.  We need to remember that this is a right, that should be given to all those that can meet the criteria.  Allowing people not to suffer in any way from their terminally ill disease or infirmity.

g)      If a criminal who has earned the right to have a death sentence placed on them, gets the right to choose how they will die.  Why can’t a law abiding citizen who has also been given a death sentence choose how they will die?