Gabriela Gutzmer - WRIT 150 Blog

I have decided to switch my focus to the health disparities that the homeless population faces, particularly homeless youth. I found a source on Credo Reference titled "Health Needs of Vulnerable Populations," which is an excerpt from the Gale  Encyclopedia of Children's Health. The source goes into detail about how homeless youths' mental and physical health are compromised by their environment and how difficult it is for them to access health care. I have already used some of the information from this source in my draft, including details about the increased risks for health conditions and communicable diseases, malnutrition issues, and the dangers of living on the street such as being more likely to become a victim of violence and human trafficking. I think this source is very helpful because it goes into a variety of external factors that impact the health of the population, which is very fitting for the WP4 topic/goal. I also plan to use information from some of

I plan to focus on the stigma surrounding mental health  and  the limited access to mental illness treatment around the world. What I already know is  that people with mental illnesses can be deterred from seeking treatment due to the stigma, that mental health treatment is very expensive, and that there are not enough resources or professionals to help everyone that needs mental health care. I also know that throughout history, mental health has not been taken as seriously as physical health, despite the severe impacts it can have on someone's life. Through research, I need to learn more about how access to mental health care has changed throughout the years, how it was impacted by COVID-19, where  (geographically)  treatment access is more  limited, and statistics about how likely people are to seek help and receive help if they do seek it. 

So far, my research has shown that there are many physical and ethical risks that come with gene editing. There has also been a case of two babies that had their DNA edited as embryos, and it has shown that the modifications only appear in the DNA of some of their cells. The effects of these mutations are unknown as of now, but the practice overall has shown to be very risky and not established enough to be done on real people. Position: As of now, scientists know too little about human DNA to safely practice gene-editing, and the improvement of the human population on the genetic level must be done ethically, as opposed to the racist, discriminatory practice of eugenics. Therefore, the most ethical response to the development of the CRISPR gene-editing tool is to postpone all practice on humans until further discoveries about the human genome sequence are made and laws are established to prevent any gene-editing for the sake of eugenic beliefs. Pillars of medical ethics involved: auto

My chosen topic is gene editing (CRISPR), which poses an ethical dilemma because the safety of editing genes poses many risks to the embryo/person later on as well as future generations that the modified DNA can be passed down to. It also opens the door to people going overboard and trying to design children to be genetically superior, which crosses the line over to eugenics, which is a discriminatory practice and commonly known as a form of scientific racism. Eugenics is the practice of trying to improve the human population by selecting the most “desirable” traits. There was a eugenics movement in the United States from the late 1800s to 1940s, which involved forced sterilization or prohibition of marriage for people with “undesirable” traits. It allowed for extreme discrimination for people of color, low economic status, and those with genetic conditions such as epilepsy. In modern times, if people are granted the ability to genetically edit embryos, it would allow for the eugenics

The position I have chosen is that it is important for the government to ensure that citizens can make informed dietary decisions, but public health policies become excessively paternalistic when they begin to control or restrict people's personal choices. For instance, additional taxes on unhealthy food items have the connotation that there is a consequence for unhealthy consumption and can make people feel "nannied" by the government. However, warning labels on foods such as "high in sodium" and "high in sugars" let people know what they are putting into their bodies if they choose to purchase the items without making them feel like they have to follow a diet of the government's choosing.  A potential objection to my position is that it is not enough to just hope that people can self-regulate with health information provided because the obesity and overconsumption issues are not just about daily choices. However, policies that take action to regu

A public health policy becomes paternalistic when it interferes with people’s habits and choices. A common way the government creates paternalistic policies is when it attempts to combat the issues of obesity and overconsumption. Restricting portion sizes and harmful ingredients, and adding taxes to unhealthy foods are prime examples of how a public health policy can, regardless of good intentions, infringe on people’s bodily autonomy by causing a direct change to their habits. However, there are also options that can help improve public health without necessarily telling people what to do or making them pay more for choices deemed unacceptable by the government. Examples include required nutrition labels and supplied dietary guides. Educational information about proper nutrition can help people make more informed dietary choices without actually making those choices for them. On the other hand, there is also the current issue of corporations encouraging overconsumption and “junk” food