Euthanasia by Claudia C. Muñoz Z.

Euthanasia is a controversial topics on the medical praxis. The main issues has been discussed over the time are their moral and ethical implications. On the one hand are those who think that God is the only one who can decide about life, and the other hand, there are those who think that, it is the own person who decides about their destiny, including the decision about their own death. Euthanasia is not a new term, through history there are a lot of evidence about the importance that this topic has had in different times and societies.   The term comes from Greek eu “well” or “good” an thanatos “death”.  For instance, in ancient Greece and Rome euthanasia was practiced, but the rise of Christianity that practice has had several detractors. They argue that life is the most important, and the natural human instincts or survival should prevail.

Nowadays, the remarkable advances in medical fields allow to handling many diseases that in the past would have been certain death.  New technology and treatments permit survivor in extreme circumstances like five heart attacks, strokes and severe traumatic brain injury and many other. In the 19th century and even in the last century were impossible for a human being remain alive after suffer those conditions. Now it is possible and for some people is one opportunity survivor in spite of suffer severe aftermath. They think is better stay alive no matter how.

There are many situations that you can decide whether it is worth living.  Sometimes, better choice is to die. But, human nature is opposite to nature, and always it is trying to find a way to overcome death.  Euthanasia is an option that you could be considered. If you have a mortal disease or a disabling illness, you are in the right to decide whether to continue with life or if you want to end the suffering.

To sum, autonomy is the fact that allow to making the best decision. Life is a right not an obligation, and be for or against euthanasia is correct. The important thing is understand and accept that in this topic there are diverse opinion.  Predominate issue is guarantee the personal will. 

Euthanasia by Natalia Osorio

There are many people that have had dear relatives who had a long, painful and humiliating death due to a terrible disease. Those people who were dying have wanted to die as soon as possible without pain and specially with dignity, but in the major of the countries, the law does not allow it. However, the best reason is a religious prejudice as happens with abortion too, who speech to the holiness or the life without the meaning of sensibility and the quality of life, but, who can decide about our life? Human being  wants a just life and just a death too, for this reason: should be euthanasia legal? Is it a good option decide how we want to die and interfere with the normal course of the life?

There are many arguments about euthanasia, some of them in favor and the others against, for example:

Ø  Points of view of Religion

Many religions as the Catholics and Jews have believed for many years that god gives us the life and only he has the legal authority to remove it. In this situation, euthanasia would be considered a rejection to god. Now, the Catholic Church is raised as the institution that rejects and attacks the euthanasia. The sanctity of life principle, which rests of human being unique relationship with God is the basic value of catholic church. Under this principle, direct intervention to end the life of a patient in a terminal condition would not be excused.   The idea that God is the unique lord over life and death and the end of the human life is not subject to a person’s free judgment.

Ø  Impact in our society

The modern medicine advances in the possibility to save more lives and causes inevitably a complex dilemma. The scene of the death and the situation of the terminal patient are the conditions that show major conflicts in this context, counting with the beginnings, often antagonistic, of the preservation of life and the relief of suffering.

Ø  Legal aspects

Some governments around the world have legalized voluntary euthanasia, but generally it remains as a criminal homicide. In Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia was been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal exceptions.

Ø  Defender groups

As well as religion has an opinion in opposition to euthanasia, there are many defender groups of the same one, for example: Joseph Fetcher, president of the society for the right to die, said: “what was happened under control of the birthrate is equally imperative as for the control of the death”.  Also, Wesley Smith director of The International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, said: “The whole society across his sanitary and civil institutions, is called to respect the life and the dignity of the serious patient and moribund people”. 

In our society, euthanasia is considered a taboo due to the fact that traditionally, the life must follow his course and only God has the right to change it, human being should not interfere in natural situations and manipulate the own death according to their desires. Society does not have the opened mind for these changes and it can be compared with the cloning, both affect the normal course of the nature. In my opinion, euthanasia from unmemorable times is a questioned option not only for the society but also for the religion and it focuses basically in the sense of the faith. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and our society is not prepared due to ignorance or fear, but it is a good option to decide how and when we want to die. Eventually,  human being in the future will have euthanasia as a choose of life or in this case, of death and I hope that this decision will be ours.

 

 

Virtual Museum By Sara Bustamante M

Would you like to visit plenty of museums without leaving your home?. Have you ever dreamed about meeting world’s most famous museums but it’s out of your budget?. A virtual museum is an online platform that anyone can visit. It´s completely free and the only thing the visitor needs is access to internet. They are designed as a physical museum, using pieces around a specific topic such as art, science, and natural history museums. They are usually created using 3D modeling and rendering: sometimes they are an exact copy of the museum however there is another kind of virtual museum which only exists online. These collections often include digital art because is easier showing them that way than exhibiting in a regular museum. Even though some of those museums only can be visited online, they are considered museums too because they have a collection, they are made to preserve knowledge, and anyone can visit them.

These virtual museums are very useful in art academies and schools, because it is an easy and didactic way of teaching about the most important pieces of art, history, biology, and etcetera. It is a good option for those who can’t go to a real museum because it is located in other country or even in other continent. Visitors don´t have to leave their houses and they don’t have to buy any ticket. They also don’t have to wait a lot of time to see a piece because there is no one else in the room: the whole museum is just for them. As it is a picture, pieces can be seen closer. Zooming them is very interesting because the visitor can observe textures and colors in a unique way which is not possible at physical museum.

Some traditional museologists disagree with this new kind of museum: they think as people have access to them for free, eventually physical museums will be emptier and their earnings will be smaller. Which means there would be downsizing. Also, they think there is another issue with virtual museums: interacting with other viewers is important to create the museum experience and it is the only thing virtual museums don’t have people.

For me, virtual museums are entertaining and interesting because everyone have chance to see many works of art and get a closer look. It makes people travel around the world and it gives visitors time traveling possibilities without leaving home. But I think virtual museums will never replace physical space; it´s like reading a digital book and reading an actual book: the environment is completely different. Virtual stuff are helpful but someday we will need to stop clicking, we will go outside and we will have to face real world again.

How media is influencing on humanity - By Camilo Lopera Aristizábal

I am going to talk about how media is influencing in our lives, all those points which I am going to say are from my point of view, just what I think about the media and how it is modifying everything surrounding us, however the media has changed some aspects of us and has helped us with many things such as a very fast way to communicate news or make easier many things in our daily lives. I am going to do an emphasis on “Social Media”, therefore it brings the smartphones; this is a controversial topic because for some people this could be bad and for other could be nice, even is known in the society that person who has not any social media is refusing the success to join to any social group, the huge societies become in a small village because everyone is available to communicate or to post something that can reach plenty of people.

The arguments for it from my point of view are: the fastest way to communicate between us, a developed society which is trying to innovate everything, easy way to have whatever kind of information, the knowledge which is online could be useful for people that want to learn something, getting the latest news which are happening over the world and one of the most important thing is that you can make money in the cheapest way; for example with the social media we can reach a very big population to develop any business with a very low cost, making that the people realize that they can buy the products or services which you are selling, there have been plenty of people that have  taken the advantage of the “Social Media” and have earned lots of money through of this way.

The arguments against are: People have made it the 21^st century addiction, because most of people usually spend  a great deal of time reviewing their smartphones, so it seems that it has become in a new addiction without them realize that they are already addicts to their smartphones, the “Social Media” has made people lose time to share with their families because they  are available to take their smartphones whatever time they want instead of it, they should enjoy their time doing useful things with their families.

In conclusion since the humanity has been trying to make our lives easier, but not one has known how to organize their time to make useful all those tools that have been appearing through the society developing. If we knew how to take the advantage that it is giving us, we would not use those tools in the way that we are using it, and finally something that tell us if we are addicted to our smartphones are: If we review our smartphones more that forty times per day, we are addicts, If we spend on our smartphones around of four hours per day, we are addicts or if somebody tell us to pay attention in a meeting, we are addicts.

Creating Organs and tissues by Diana López

“Steve Austin, astronaut, his life is in danger; we have the technology to transform him in a powerful cybernetic organism”. Six million dollar man, 1973.

This was probably the first time that humankind started thinking in saving human’s life but with a small difference, this time it would not be only with medicine, it would be using technology and a little bit of imagination to save Steve Austin’s life and turn him into the “Six million dollar man” or, as we know him in our country “El hombre nuclear”. It is not easy to say that this was inspiring for someone to start thinking about the possibility to create artificial organs, but history has shown that there is a tight relation between sci-fi and real science. Documentation about this topic refers, that it was in 1990 when people started thinking in regeneration or the creation of artificial organs.

Advances in the development of in vitro cell tissues and organs, have shown promising developments as alternative to transplant, discover new treatments and restoration of specific organs or body functions. Organs creation or regeneration is a process where a tissue or an organ is created from “stem cells”, now at least 3.000 clinical trials are being developed around the world, with a promising future in the coming years.

Since studies started it has been possible to create a heart, lung, liver, kidney, ovary, intestine and cornea, only at the experimental field, however there are two cases that they were taken to the real life, both were trachea transplantations for subjects with tracheal stenosis; in these situations the life of these persons improved, which is a good advantage and gives more hope to keep supporting research on this scenario. Among the advantages of this scientific advance there are: the power to replace damaged tissues or whole organs conducting effective and timely transplantation because of the shortage of organs donors and the generation and rejection in the person receiving an organ. They can also be used to test new therapies or drugs with greater reliability than when tried only with animals, and this would be a way to protect species.

Throughout the history of mankind there has been a great interest in understanding life and nature, and all the human efforts have been directed to this, but, under what interest man wants to have control over this?. With these scientific advances, there is a possibility to extend life on an unthinkable way, but the magnitude which this may have in the universe is unknown, this is an ethical dilemma in the scientific field. Other topics to consider are: lack of long term studies to understand the side effects, maternal effects, effects on future generations born of parents with artificial organs, the possibility of new diseases or conditions in humans and the impact on the environment.

Although organs creation or regeneration are focused on the improvement of life quality, there could also be a lot of interests when the life of one person or hundreds are in a person´s hands, a country or certain group of people, and this is one of the points that must be checked under the etic sight and not only wait until something displeasing happens, to start thinking in the way to control the uses of these organs, -the uses of artificial life creation. In my opinion, I support all that could help the improvement of life, in all of its dimensions and I think that with good vigilance and control this will help many people to find a new meaning for their lives, I know that this topic makes humankind rethink several things that have been raised through all human history, so, it is not only necessary vigilance and control, but also education to help people in general to understand that despite human kind can create life “without counting” the help of mother nature it doesn’t mean that humans are superior and therefore there is no need to take care about nature and environment. We would also have to consider carefully the side effects and the ethical and moral implications for society. We can´t forget that science is just a way to help the world to become a better place, the world is not only the place for humans: the world as a whole, where we should keep the balance of the creation.

Growing body parts, human wittiness or just people that believe themselves god. By Esteban Ibargüen

Dan lost his leg in a car accident however, the next day he bought another one in the

corner store. Do you think this is madness? Scientist in USA, Mexico, and Switzerland

are growing reproductive organs and nasal cartilage in labs successfully implanted

in patients. Nowadays thanks to the cutting edge technology it is possible have real

implants in your body. In china, a guy who lost his ability for breath by an infection

following by a car accident, woke up a couple of days later in the California's hospital

with a nose in his forehead, !AWESOME!. The doctors decided grow a second nose on

the man’s forehead to replace the original nose since the old one was so infected that

it was impossible save it.

For "normal" people this might be a kind of weird experiment or a terrifying movie

as "The island of Doctor Moureau or Frankestain". If you see a man with a nose in

his forehead, would be this normal for you? This practice it's now quite controversial

since different people see growing body parts as something abnormal and atypical.

Especially religious fanatics who thinks this is a blasphemy against god. What would

you do if you see a man with a hand in his face? This is something extreme but might

happen in a not far future. As far as I'm concern, I think this practice could help a lot

of people who had lost body parts as soldiers, even innocents who are in middle of

the war, for example kids maimed by underground mines or people who have been

amputated for some weird disease. Instead of waiting for donor organs, people could

have new ones grown in a lab; this will be great for the sake of humanity.

Growing organs has more good than bad things, but man is unpredictable, it's very

likely that in a not far future, man begins doing wrong things, this might become in

a mafia, selling this organs to high prices, so poor people could not have access to

this benefits and only a tiny group of people could afford transplants of these organs,

perhaps a lot of people could seize of that and become rich and powerful at the

expenses of sell organs and the suffering of who really need it.

Human brain is able to do awesome things, but the need of power makes that human

being uses the technology only for his benefit and not for those who are around.

We can predict the future wars, soldiers with 4-8 arms, super animals with fantastic

abilities for evil; maybe the next world war will be by organs.

THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE USE OF THE MEDIA By Ana Maria Ramirez

The media has become into something very important to define who we are or what we believe these days. We are constantly surrounded by all kind of information that may affect our thoughts. It is impossible to avoid the information the media generate every day because it is given to us rather we wanted or not thanks to the different devices like smart phones, laptops, tablets, etc.

 

Today people have more access to information than some decades ago and this is a good thing because we can be aware of many things that happen around the world and knowing that we can prevent or learn really quick. I think the media has given to us the chance to have an opened mind and to understand the magnitude of the globe.

 

Privacy it is something that we have lost with the media and I really do not know what position to take about that because in a way it is good to know things that as citizen we must know like what our governors or influential people are doing  and that kind of stuff but at the same time the media show us private personal things that we shouldn’t know and this is not that good sometimes….I think there is a very little and invisible line between know what we must and know everything even more when those things are not object of our concern, but it is the morbid feeling  we put in the information that can cause harm or misunderstood. Also the amount of sources and the lifestyle people have these days it is a very risky “marriage” because sometimes as peoples is becoming more lonely and reserved the media can fill the gaps we have and in many cases be able to transform or convince us to think something they wanted…It is because we do not talk between each other anymore (just throw social media) that we have given the media the permission to fill our heads and believes, we believe what we see or read in the media but we do not take the time to make a little research to verify if the information it is true or not.

 

Finally I think the media itself it is not a bad thing it, is the intention behind the information that may be dangerous or can cause the wrong perception on people or even worst it is our laziness that have given the media the position they have today in our culture. We have to remember to use our brain and start to do more research and doubt about what we read and see in that way we can build a better judgment.

 

ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS THE SOLUTION TO WORLD HUNGRY? By Sebastian Zapata Henao

Monsanto is a leading company of genetically engineered (GE) seeds. They said “Biotechnology is one of tomorrow’s tools in our hands today. Slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford”. Genetically modified organims (GMOs) are plants that have undergone processes where DNA has been modified in order to get new features which naturally couldn´t occur in the plant.

Throughout my research, I found that there are several benefits that GMOs can provide to farmers, such as lower production costs and higher yields because these plants have resistance to insects, diseases, and environmental factors. GMOs are products that are subject to constant checks and analysis even higher than traditional foods. All these advantages have been justifications that producers of these plants have had to promote their products, trying to fight hunger in the world and also fill our fields with these organisms.

After the use of these plants, many problems have occurred on the planet, and seventeen years later, hunger still pervades our population. This is why I think that this is not the tool that will eradicate hunger in underdeveloped countries. Most GMOs are resistant to chemicals such as herbicides but unfortunately, the main producers of these plants also create chemicals for weed control, which has become a big business that only increases the use of these chemicals in our fields and every day pollutes more the environment and food that will be produced from these plants.  But the problems don’t end there. These plants have toxic substances against diseases and insects that affect crops, but these organisms, seeking survival, mutate and become new organisms. They have no control and will destroy the crops. Not to mention that every day, these crops also affect insects, animals, and other organisms that are beneficial to the ecological balance of the environment, as is the case of the Monarch Butterfly. These plants produce toxins as defense mechanisms, which can cause numerous effects on human health. Tomatoes, corn, soybean and transgenic potatoes have been produced gastric ulcers, intestinal damage, growth problems, damage to the liver and kidneys, in rats that were fed with these plants, also caused by the large amount of chemicals present in these foods. Besides these crops, can have compounds that cause allergies by the combination of DNA from different plants, as has happened with the soybean that was injected with features a Brazilian walnut. Some studies also show that the vast majority of foods from these crops, are indigestible, some compounds travel to the blood and transmit components that block the action of drugs such as antibiotics.

From my point of view genetically engineered crops were established as a business for big profits, but not as a method of ending world hunger. Ironically, corn, soybeans and sugar beets, the most cultivated transgenic plants are being used as a whole for animal food, especially for cattle, and for the production of biofuels. But we need to feel calm because if our planet was consuming these foods, the hunger would end in death. No doubt that genetically modified crops won’t be the solution to world hunger, by contrast, it will be more a problem for a population that every day is more extensive, suffering from new diseases and has less space for the production of food.  Thinking of production systems such as hydroponics, where the products are completely organic, improving food security bases in each of the countries and investing more money in the field, is the solution.