Critical Reasoning Week 6 Discussion 1

!

This is a graded discussion: 25 points possible due Aug 17 at 1:59am

Week 6 Discussion 1: Comparative Reasoning 46 46

 

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity:

Introduction The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).

The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).

Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:

Textbook: Chapter 12 Lesson 1, 2 Link (library article): The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953 (https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds- live&scope=site) Link (library article): The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? (https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site) Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/) Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 1 of 42

 

 

Follow-Up Post Instructions Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.

Writing Requirements

Grading This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6

Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

References

DeShazo, R.D., Johnson, M., Eriator, Ike, Rodenmeyer, K. (2018). Backstories on the U.S. opioid epidemic. Good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue, and watch dogs gone to sleep. The American Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30084-6/fulltext

Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-who-is-to- blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

In what way are the two situations comparable? In what way are they different? Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.

Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up) Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source) APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 2 of 42

 

 

” Reply

King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site

Wolinsky H., & Brune, T. (1994). The serpent on the staff: The unhealthy politics of the American Medical Association. Tarcher/Putnam.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Jun 22, 2020

!

Greetings Students,

You are only required to post an initial answer post and ONE follow-up post in each required discussion, each week.

Please make your TWO posts each week between Monday and Sunday. Your posts must occur on different days with the first post occurring by Wednesday. If there are extenuating circumstances, please communicate with your professor.

Reasoning with Analogies

Analogies are comparisons applied to some specific intellectual purpose

Reasoning with Analogies Involves the Following:

Argument by analogy or reasoning by analogy

Used to explain by comparison

Used simply to give a vivid description or to spice up a narrative

new and unfamiliar to more familiar abstract and intangible to tangible things

Similarity Difference Relevance

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 3 of 42

 

 

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Jun 22 at 12:40pm

” Reply #

Finally, in order to Evaluate an Argument by Analogy follow the steps below:

An argument by analogy involves reasoning from one situation to an analogous, or similar, situation; a conclusion is reached about something on the basis of it being similar to something else. The form of an argument by analogy is this: A has/is X, and so B applies; C also has/is X, so be sure also apply. For example, an orange is rounded, and it rolls; this ball is also around, so it should also role.

The strength of an argument by analogy depends on whether there are sufficient relevant similarities and no relevant dissimilarities. The more relevant similarities there are, and the fewer relevant dissimilarities, the stronger the argument. For example, roundness is relevant to rolling: since both the orange and the ball are around, they are similar in that relevant feature.

Consider this. A week analogy is one in which few of the relevant features are similar; in such a case, your conclusion follows only weakly from your premises (and should therefore be accepted with minimal confidence). A false analogy is one in which none of the relevant features are similar, or worse, they’re dissimilar in the relevant aspects; in such a case, you’ve made a faulty comparison and the argument should be rejected.

 

Reference

Tittle, P. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason. Routledge, New York, NY.

Inferential: to infer conclusions Argumentative: to support or defend controversial positions Useful to distinguish the items compared by the roles they play in the comparison Analogue(s): the item(s) used as the basis of the comparison Target(s): the item(s) about which conclusions are drawn or explanations are offered

1. Identify the similarities between the analogue and the target 2. Determine whether this similarity is relevant to the conclusion 3. Determine whether there are significant relevant differences between the analogue and the

target 4. Use these determinations to evaluate the strength of the argument inferred by analogy

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/152005)

Melissa Shetto (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/152005)

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 4 of 42

 

 

Thursday

!

Hello everyone

 

According to what I have gathered, these two situations are comparable and similar in the way of the role the physicians played in promoting products that were harmful to people, the doctors who accepted payment or researchers who received funding said or supported whatever their donors said in exchange of endorsing the tobacco products or opioid based medication. Also, both cases involved commercialized products that had limited or highly misinterpreted information which led to the public being misinformed.

According to Gardner and Brandt (2011), smoking had become a norm for both men and women in the 1930’s and 1940’s in America. They further highlight how a rise in public concern over health risks posed by smoking cigarettes led tobacco companies to use physicians’ endorsements as an evocative assurance of the safety of their products.

The same is evident in the role physicians played in accelerating the opioid crisis in America. According to Gale (2016), many “medical experts” and “thought leaders” proclaimed that the risks of addiction to opioids were minimal when treating pain.

These two situations differ from one another in the purpose of the product involved and the role the physicians played. In one case, physicians were used as part of the advertisement and the product was for recreational purposes where as in the other case the physician prescribed medication which in many instances led to addiction and the product was for medical treatment.

I believe that the conduct of physicians in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is morally equivalent to the conduct of physicians in opioid crisis. I say this because in both cases the physicians did not act according to the ethical standards of their professional field, in both instances they chose financial gain above the well fare of the general public. Also, in both situations the physicians overlooked evidence and information that suggested the possibility of negative side-effects both tobacco and opioid might have on the users.

When the practice of Medicine loses its ethical foundation and operates by the rules of the market place rather than the ethical standards, one can expect that disasters like the money-driven

In what way are the two situations comparable?

In what way are they different?

Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis?

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 5 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

physician caused opioid epidemic to occur again (Gale, 2016).

 

 

 

References

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654 (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139931/pdf/ms113_p0244.pdf (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139931/pdf/ms113_p0244.pdf)

1. Gardner M. N. (2006). “The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”. American Public Health Association. 96. No.2

2. Gale A. H. (2016). Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?. Missouri medicine, 113(4), 244–246.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)

Caitlyn Pienkowski (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153) Tuesday

!

Hello!

I would say one way the two situations are comparable is that both situations involve physicians to improve the situation. The advertisements I seen in the article by Gardner, it seems as if they used a doctors image to promote newer and improved cigarettes that cause less irritation approved by a physician. And the association of doctors with the opioid crisis uses a physician to bring awareness of the opioid crisis, since it is a health issue.

Ways they are different is that the situation with cigarettes has to do with awareness of a better product and the opioid crisis has to do with awareness of a negative situation. They are also in two different time zones. Physicians in 2020 would never promote a newer and improved brand of cigarettes. Those advertisements were made in the 1930s-1950s. It was after 1954 industry strategists deemed

Search entries or author Unread $

%

& Subscribe

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 6 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

physician images in advertisements no longer credible in the face of growing public concern about the health evidence implicating cigarettes (Gardner, 2006).

I would say the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis. I say this because it is not morally right to promote cigarette smoking as it is has many negative health effects and no positive effects to a person. It also sets a contradiction as a physician is suppose to impose healthy lifestyle habits and a promotion of smoking is not doing that. It might be that one might say the same as to why a physician would prescribe a pain killer as it can be highly addictive and has many risk factors that play along with it. “Most doctors hate and fear dealing with pain, and are utterly unequipped to do so; treating pain properly requires specialized training; it consumes vast amounts of time few doctors have” (Zuger, 2018). If doctors need extra training to know how to treat pain better, they should not be in positions to continue to prescribe medicine that can contribute to the opioid crisis. I do not believe it is morally right for a physician to ignore the risks that play into the opioids and deem that the only treatment that can help with pain.

 

References

Brandt, M., Gardner, M. (2006). “The doctors’ choice is america’s choice”: The physician in us cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), p222-32. Retrieved from https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds-live&scope=site (https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds-live&scope=site)

Zuger, A. (2018). A doctor’s guide to what to read on the opioid crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/books/review/opioid-abuse-drug-dealer-anna- lembke.html?searchResultPosition=4 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/books/review/opioid- abuse-drug-dealer-anna-lembke.html?searchResultPosition=4)

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Tuesday

!

Caitlyn, thank you for your post to this week’s discussion.

Can you explain what you mean by, “they are also in two different time zones.”? Did you perhaps mean something different other than time zones since time zones are Eastern time, central time, mountain time, etc.?

Here is a challenging argument from analogy. Analyze and break down this argument and

Top

!

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 7 of 42

 

 

” Reply # (1 like)

test its validity. How good is Norwood Wells analogy? Explain.

An interesting switch was pulled in Rome yesterday by Adam ignored well, and American Chippewa chief. As he descended his plane from California dressed in full tribal reality, ignored well announced in the name of the American Indian people that he was taking possession of Italy “by right of discovery” in the same way that Christopher Columbus did in America. “I proclaimed this day the day of the discovery of Italy,” said ignored well. “What right did Columbus have to discover America when it had already been inhabited for thousands of years? The same right I now have two come to Italy and proclaim the discovery of your country.”

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)

Caitlyn Pienkowski (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Hi Prof,

I meant to say they are also in two different times. The advertisements were made in the 1930s and in today’s world in 2020 those types of advertisements would never get published as times have drastically changed over time.

I think Norwood Well’s anaolgy is very well put as he made a very clear and true statement that Christopher Columbus was not the first man to discover America. It is said Native Americans were living on the North American land long before it was discovered by a group of Vikings and then Christopher Columbus came to America. Well is connecting that just because he went to Italy doesn’t mean that he now was the first to discover it.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/64315)

Dijana Rahmanovic (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/64315) Yesterday

!

Hello. I appreciated the last part of your post about the two situations being morally equivalent. I agree with you that doctors should be held accountable for their participation in both aiding in advertising tobacco and prescribing opioids blindly to their patients. Consider that, do you think that

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 8 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

doctors participate in the opioid crisis or do they work to put a stop to it?

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/118358)

Monica Hernandez (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/118358) Tuesday

!

Good morning Professor and Class,

Association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising: Before, when when we didn’t know the cause of lung cancer, Tobacco companies are hired doctors for promotions of tobacco products. They say that their products are don’t cause irritation to the nose and mouth. But after identifying tobacco is smoking was the main risk for.lung Cancer doctors didn’t work for promotions instead they are encouraged to avoid smoking.

Association of doctors with opioid crisis: It causes due to the overuse of opioids. After adding pian as 5th vital signs thus use was grossly increase. An opioid is a main pain killer drug.asone of the doctor (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=doctor) statement as antibiotics we prescribed opioids as a pain killer because we don’t want to feel patient discomfort and need to reduce pain and this also approved by FAD.

Both are unhealthy for health (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=health) due to over-usage. As doctors avoiding and encourage to avoid smoking but they can’t able to avoid prescription of opioids because it was pain relief medicine but dosages are decreasing.

The Opioid pandemic article states, “The role of these physicians can best be described as innocent bystander. We were truly trying to help the patient”(Hirsch2017).

Opioid crisis depends on the patient , because it causes addiction if we use continuous, better use with doctor (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=doctor) prescription.

 

References:

Farmer (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=Farmer) , B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic- who-is-to-blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 9 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health (https://image- seeker.com/s/?q=Health) , 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Tuesday

” Reply #

!

Monica, thank you for your post for this week.

Can you provide your response as to the moral equivalency of these two?

Then, identify the following argument as to type. And as best as you are able, identify the premise(s) and the conclusion.:

In 2010, a mudslide in Germany killed three people. Investigators discovered that a top-secret underground chemical facility used by the Nazis in World War II had collapsed directly underneath the site. It is believed, then, that the collapse of this facility triggered the disaster.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682)

Ashley White (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682) Tuesday

!

Hi Professor and Class!

The tobacco industry used doctors by using their pictures and getting them to approve a certain brand of cigarettes. Back in the day they didn’t know that smoking was linking to lung cancer. They wanted smokers to believe by smoking a certain name brand, such as Camel, you weren’t as at risk for harmful side effects compared to a cheap pack of off brand cigarettes. Furthermore, to other smokers if doctors smoke then how can it be bad? Once doctors filled out positive surveys about specific brands the tobacco industry used this to sell more of their brand.

Opiate abuse has also skyrocketed. The difference in this situation is pharmaceutical industries

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 10 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

mislead doctors into thinking they were helping patients with pain when they in fact knew the terrible effects the drug would have on the patients. Once doctors realized this, you have good doctors that wanted to stop opiate prescription abuse and you have the doctors, just like the pharmaceutical companies, continued to abuse their prescription power for their own monetary gain.

I think both concepts are both morally equivalent. Both cause harm to people and both are highly addictive. It also seems in both situations most of the time people don’t understand fully the risks they are taking with either one. People are tricked and convinced that both are not as harmful just for monetary gain.

Little, B. (2018, September 13). When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154119)

Juliana Shahly (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154119) Tuesday

!

Hello Professor and class,

Both of these issues are similar because these situations involved physicians, which were part of the problem. For instance, according to Gardner and Brandt (2006), ads were published in the media that had pictures of physicians to promote smoking, especially Camel cigarettes. In regard to the opioid crisis, Hirsh (2017) mentions that physicians were overprescribing opioids to people, which is why opioid use was a big problem. For instance, physicians prescribe 30 to 60 pills to people instead of prescribing a smaller amount of pills (Hirsh, 2017). People overuse opioids because they are left with extra pills, which can easily lead to addiction if taken more than needed (Hirsh, 2017). Also, with all the extra opioid pills out there, people could easily get access to them by stealing them (Hirsh, 2017).

“Comparative reasoning enables us to make interpretations, draw inferences, or offer explanations” (Facione & Gittens, 2016, p. 242).

These situations are both different because physicians played different roles in these issues. For example, physicians were overprescribing opioids, which was killing people in regard to opioid

In what way are the two situations comparable?

In what way are they different?

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 11 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

addiction (Hirsh, 2017). However, physicians were used in ads to promote cigarette smoking in the other situation (Gardner and Brandt, 2006). Secondly, both of these situations were not in the same time frame. For instance, physicians were used in ads to promote smoking in 1930-1953 whereas the opioid situation is more recent. Now, physicians are not seen in smoking ads but opioid addiction is still an issue.

I feel that the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry and the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis are both morally equivalent because smoking and opioid addiction are very dangerous to a person’s health and could lead to severe health problems or even death. For example, smoking could lead to lung problems, and overusing opioids may lead to overdosing.

References:

Facione, P. & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Thinking critically. 3 . Ed. Pearson:Boston, MA.

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/)

Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.

rd

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)

Caitlyn Pienkowski (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153) Wednesday

!

Hi Juliana,

You pointed out a lot of great points in your post. For example when you mentioned that physicians were over prescribing opioids which leads to extras for the person to take or for someone to sell/steal. That was a great observation in the cause of how people are overdosing on opioids. I agree with your statement on that the concept is morally equivalent. Great post!

-Caitlyn

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 12 of 42

 

 

” Reply # (1 like)

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/99157)

Wei Wen Chiang (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/99157) Wednesday

!

Hello professor and class,

Reading about history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies blows my mind. All of us know that tobacco is not healthy for our bodies. It is one for the risk factors listed in almost every disorders. It is bad for almost all the body systems. I believe the doctors who was surveyed back in the day was “bribed” with their answer choice. They were provided with complimentary cartons of Camels after the survey (Gardner & Brandt, 2016). I believe that’s the similar situation with opioid crisis. We all know that opioid is easily addicted. Some pain control clinics receive millions of dollars from opioid pain killer companies (Gale, 2016). It appears that doctors are following the money and choose to have opioid pain killers because of the financial aspect of it.

I think the difference with two cases are not the doctors, but the patient and the smokers. Smokers have a choice to decide if they want to smoke or not. It is not a medical emergency to smoke. The smokers know the risk of smoking and decide to smoke. But the patients who take opioid pain killers are prescribed by the doctors. When you are in pain and you have no choice by the opioid pain killers, you will take it to relieve the pain.

I believe the doctors in relation to smoking is just equally bad with doctors in the opioid crisis nowadays. I believe that the “audience”, either the smokers or the patients should research for the consequence of consuming the tobacco or opioid. It is our responsibilities that to learn about the substance and ask questions if we have one.

 

 

Facione, P. & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Thinking critically. 3 . Ed. Pearson:Boston, MA.

Gale A. H. (2016). Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?. Missouri medicine, 113(4), 244–246.

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

rd

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 13 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Ann, when you say believe the doctors were bribed, can you explain that a bit further? You said what you believed but then you provided a statement from Gardner & Brandt; is that the rationale for your thoughts?

Let’s have some practice in identifying the kinds of similarities needed to support an argument by analogy. As a note of similarity is important if noticing that two things are similar in a way that gives you a reason to think that the things might be similar in some other way. For example: adopting a dog and having a child. Adopting a dog is like having a child and that both require taking responsibility for another living being. Also, they can both turn your home into a big mess!

Determine the following similarities or not, and explain your answer.

 

1. Being a student and having a job. 2. First-degree murder and euthanasia (physician-assisted death).

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682)

Ashley White (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Hi Ann!

Great Post! I like how you described the difference between the two. It made me look at both different. Your so right. Smokers can quit and aren’t getting anything out of smoking but causing damage to themselves. Patients that take opiates, and are in actual pain, are patients trying to relieve pain. I also agree with you that both situations were equally bad. Its really sad that peoples health can easily be taken advantage of for monetary gain for others!

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 14 of 42

 

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/129972)

Brittany Varnes (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/129972) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Hi Professor and Class,

According to Gardner and Brandt (2006), the Americans had taken up cigarette smoking as a habit of the elite men and women in society. Doctors had also adapted the habit and their images were hugely used by cigarette manufacturers to endorse smoking as a safe habit. Gardner and Brandt (2006) also note that manufacturers overlooked the health limitations that resulted from smoking and held that smoking was safe since physicians also partook in the habit. In a different light, Hirsch (2017) places the blame on the spread of the opioid pandemic on physicians who over-prescribe opioids to patients to reduce pain.

Both articles are related in that they describe the provision of substances that negatively impact the health outcomes of Americans. Cigarette manufacturers seek to optimize their output and maximize profits by encouraging smoking. Hospitals also seek monetary gains by over-prescribing opioids. The two articles are however different in terms of the roles that physicians play; they are actively engaged in smoking which puts them at the direct risk of developing health problems. While they take part in prescribing opioids in the second article, thus putting the lives of patients at risk. These articles present a fallacy of relevance. They are both morally relevant in that healthcare providers play an integral role in promoting substance abuse. Smokers and patients are manipulated into believing that cigarettes and opioids are not harmful. The two incidences lead to a healthcare crisis in the United States.

References

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017, March). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. PubMed Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/147419)

Elijah Wiggin

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 15 of 42

 

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/147419) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

These two situations have a similarity of both dealing with physicians. In the 1940s they used an advertisement of, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” (Martha N. Gardner, 2006) Then with the opioid epidemic of physicians prescribing to much of medicines in general, but especially in opioids and antibiotics.

They are different because back in the 1930s and 1940s they were not aware of the health complications that cigarettes can cause over a period of time. Their intentions were not to promote cigarettes for people to get a type of cancer or get sick. The opioid epidemic is different. The physicians do not over prescribe patients for them to abuse it. Physicians do not want their patients to be in pain. “Prescribing 6 to 10 pills will undoubtedly result in a phone call from a pharmacist asking for a round number of pills.”(Ronald Hirsch, 2017)

I think that they are morally equivalent. They both bring harm to the body and do not benefit whatsoever. With smoking and opioids being very addictive, it does not help that physicians are the driving force behind them.

Brandt, M., Gardner, M. (2006). “The doctors’ choice is america’s choice”: The physician in us cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), p222-32. Retrieved from https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds- live&scope=site (https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds-live&scope=site)

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/64315)

Dijana Rahmanovic (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/64315) Wednesday

!

Hello professor and class.

The association of doctors with tobacco companies and with the opioid crisis in the U.S. have both both

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 16 of 42

 

 

compare to and contrast with each other. One way they are comparable is that in both circumstances, healthcare professionals (either consciously or not) remained and remain (in the case of the opioid crisis) ignorant to the dangers of both tobacco and opioid use/abuse. While today every pack of cigarettes comes with the Surgeon General’s warning of their hazard to our health, not too long ago doctors were instead giving out their own recommendations for which cigarettes were a favorable purchase. Between the 1930s and 1950s, tobaccos companies enticed physicians through company bribes (free cigarettes) in exchange for their sponsership of their brands. It is believed that tobacco companies targeted them as a sales force in order to dissuade the public from any negative ties to individuals’ health (Ayoub, N.F., Jackler, R.J., 2018). Likewise, it is believed that healthcare professionals today over-prescribe opioids to their patients, as well as lack an emphasis on proper pain management to clients. Similar to how big tobacco companies have pressured healthcare providers in the past to advertise their products, pharmaceutical companies aggressively push their own products onto the physicians whose responsibility it is to prescribe them (King, S.A., 2018).

Because both situations are set in different eras where norms and legalities differ from each other, doctors who were encourages the purchase of cigarettes did it more openly. Cigarettes at the time were very popular among the public and many of the health hazards they pose were not yet confirmed or were not thought to be of importance because their long-term effects had not taken full effect at the time. Physicians themselves were smokers as well, which made it even easier for their patients to trust their recommendations. Today, we understand the dangers of opioids, laws and healthcare regulations are in place to protect the public from them. Because of this, the role physicians and pharmaceutical companies play in the opioid crisis is more discreet.

Moral equivalence, summed up, is the belief that if two actions are considered to be both on the same moral level, then one action being good (or bad) means the other action is also good (or bad). I believe that both of these situations are morally equivalent. Health care professionals have a duty to their patient which must always come first, especially before their own personal agendas (i.e. bribes from companies who seek to push dangerous products through them). Medical professionals are professionals for a reason- they cannot play the ignorant card on some health matters in order to avoid accountability. Therefore, in both situations, healthcare professionals allowed themselves to be manipulated by money and power, regardless of the danger they knew they were putting their patients in.

 

References

King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site

Ayoub, N.F. & Jackler, R.K. (2018). ‘Addressed to you not as a smoker but as a doctor’: doctor-targeted cigarette advertisements. Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14151

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 17 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154614)

Jasmine Burgess (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154614) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

The two situations are comparable because physicians play a major role in them both. Physicians play a role in the tobacco crisis because it was advertised that physicians were smokers. Many individuals look up to physicians and look to them for health advice and information. An individual may feel that if a physician smokes then smoking is ok, causing more individuals to pick up the habit. Physicians play a role in the opioid crisis because they are writing prescriptions for patients to access these drugs.

The situations are different because in the opioid crisis, physicians are legally prescribing opioids to patients. Whether the patient abuses the opioids or not, the physician has an obligation to prescribe these medications to patients who claim to need them. Physicians are to use their judgement to determine that the opioids they prescribe are being used properly but there is not always a sure why to know. As far as the tobacco crisis, physicians are playing a direct part with advertising tobacco usage and being an example, which promotes tobacco the bad habit.

I do not believe the role that physicians play in the tobacco crisis and the opioid crisis are morally equivalent. Physician have an obligation to provide care to patients. If a patient comes into a doctor’s office and is proven to have pain that requires the treatment of an opioid, physicians are obligated to write the prescription. If the patient abuses the medication, the doctor should not be at fault. The doctor was simply doing their job to provide the best quality care to their patients. As far as the tobacco crisis, physicians are responsible for advertising this harmful substance because they used their platform for promotion of the product. If an individual sees that a physician is smoking, it can make them think that such behavior is acceptable and has no health consequences. Doctors are seen as health conscious and knowledgeable about what is harmful to the body so whatever they are seen doing, many individuals will think it is ok for them to do as well.

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). “The doctors’’ choice is America’s choice”: the physician in US cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953.” American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232.

King, S. A. (2018). The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? Psychiatric Times, 35(6), 14–15.

 

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 18 of 42

 

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/140314)

Christine Mercado (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/140314) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Hello Class,

A strategic way that tobacco industries were marketing tobacco products was using advertisements with physicians to promote a certain brand of Camel cigarettes. People believed that if they used these specific brands of cigarettes, they would have less health risks because doctors were smoking that same brand too. “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarettes.” (Gardner and Brandt, 2006). In regards to the opioid epidemic, physicians were overprescribing medications, specifically opioids for pain management. It is the left over pills that sit in medicine cabinets, that can be accessible to people to steal abuse them. (Hirsch 2017). Both of these articles are related, because they involve physicians that people deemed as part of the problem for both situations.

These articles are different because of the time periods. In the article that used physicians to promote Camel cigarettes, was back in the 1930s. In this current time, physicians would not be used to promote cigarettes. As for the opioid crisis, this is still a relevant problem, however, as a way to decrease the risks of opioid abuse, doctors are no longer overprescribing medications. I believe that the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry and the conduct of doctors are both morally equivalent, because the use of tobacco products and opioid abuse increase risks of health problems, therefore, healthcare providers can be the key to addressing substance misuse and help reduce health disparities.

References

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017, March). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. PubMed Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154614)

Jasmine Burgess

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 19 of 42

 

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154614) Yesterday

” Reply #

!

Hi Christine,

I agree with your prospective of the articles that were presented in this discussion. I do feel that each article placed an argument that physicians had a negative impact on both crises. I agree that the involvement of physicians in both situations can be turned and used to help bring awareness which, in turn, may help to decrease or eliminate these crises.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/95642)

Aliyah Castleberry (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/95642) Wednesday

!

 

Hello Professor and Class,

One way that the two situations are similar is that they both involve physicians. For tobacco companies back in the 30’s and 40’s, having a physician in their commercials offered the best kind of support. If doctors were seen in ads smoking a cigarette or even supporting the company, the readers would go buy that brand of tobacco thinking it was safe because a doctor was doing it. The two are different in the support they received. The tobacco companies received a ton of support from physicians, whereas the physicians now do not support the over prescription of opioids, so much so that many physicians are hesitant to even prescribe them when they are likely needed. When applying the concept of moral equivalence, I do believe that the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis. I believe this because in both instances doctors are supporting the use of potentially dangerous substances. Though tobacco was not prescribed to people, it was supported by physicians which made many people accept that it was safe.

 

Thank you, Aliyah Castleberry

References:

rd

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 20 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

Facione, P. & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Thinking critically. 3 . Ed. Pearson:Boston, MA.

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232

 

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/%C2%A0%20))

 

rd

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/147419)

Elijah Wiggin (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/147419) Yesterday

” Reply #

!

Good point for addressing that physicians are realizing the issue of over prescribing opioids. There is a difference in the support that the physicians are giving on both situations. After realizing the negatives from cigarettes I believe that the stance doctors had on them changed. Good post!

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/127931)

Adilene Alvarez (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/127931) Wednesday

!

Hello,

In what way are the two situations comparable? In both situations’ doctors were encouraging the use of substances that harm the body. Tobacco increase the risk factor for lung cancer and is addictive. Opioid is a drug that could be addictive. Both could be easily found without prescription. In what way are they different?

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 21 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

At the time doctors encourage and advertise tobacco they were not aware of the consequence it came with. When an individual developed symptom, a physician might appropriately advise restricting or eliminating tobacco (Gardner, 2006). On another note, doctors prescribe Opioid knowing the harm an consequences it brings. The article stated, “Whether good or bad, pharmaceutical company representatives are sale people trying to get physicians to prescribe their products” (King,2018). Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific. In my opining both concepts are morally equivalent. Both gain their popularity among society with advertisements. People began to use both without knowing the risk factors it came with. Tobacco and Opioid are both addictive and harmful to the body.

References: Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138071)

Danin Sibert (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138071) Wednesday

!

Hi class,

The two situations are comparable because they both have doctors influencing them. The ads for cigarettes have the doctors as one of the main aspects of the advertisement and/or his endorsement for the product. The opioid crisis has a huge influence from doctors that are prescribing them. fHowever, they are extremely different. Opioids get prescribed by doctors (usually) because the doctors think it is the right medication for the patient, the problem is when that turns into a concern over profit rather than the patients well being. “Too many people are leaving hospital with bottles of opioid tablets they don’t need”(Makary, Overton, & Wang, 2017). Patients can become addicted to opioids after a prescription and it can be extremely difficult to overcome once the problem has started. The ads with doctors promoting cigarettes happened during the 40’s when there was no knowledge of it being as serious of a health problem as it is. “In 1930s and 1940s, however, smoking had become the norm for both men and women in the United States—and a majority of physicians smoked” (Gardener & Brandt,

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 22 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

2006, p 222). Both of these situations were started with no bad intentions, but unfortunately they both have negative effects on society. Although it was a hard decision, I do believe that these situations are morally equivalent. All in all, a big factor in both of these concepts is the desire to bring in more money. The cigarette ad wanted everyone to believe that is was “safe” and influence others to buy more. With the opioid crisis, the doctors that have suspicion of drug abuse and still over prescribe opioids are doing it for the huge amount of money it brings in. Although doctors prescribe the narcotics, I do not believe they initially go into it with negative intentions of creating an addict. Both citizens have the option to try to stop their addictions, although it is extremely hard in both cases.

 

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Makary, M. A., Overton, H. N., & Wang, P. (2017). Overprescribing is major contributor to opioid crisis. Bmj. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4792

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/115159)

Jessica Woods (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/115159) Wednesday

!

The two subjects are comparable because in both situations doctors took the responsibility and/or blame. They were more or less a scapegoat. Doctors have been a trusted source on the topic of health. This fact lead companies in tobacco and opioids to use their images in order to gain the trust of the public to increase profits. “The first cigarette company to use physicians in their ads was American Tobacco, maker of Lucky Strikes. In 1930, it published an ad claiming “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating’” to the throat.” (Little, 2018). Since a brand was deemed less damaging by doctors, then the public trusted that it was safe. In the case of opioids, it was seen as just another medication being prescribed. Not many people second guess their doctors, so as long as people were able to obtain a prescription, it was deemed safe. The companies did not inform physicians exactly how addictive these substances were even though they were aware.

In what way are the two situations comparable?

In what way are they different?

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 23 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

The way these two are different is that in the case of tobacco the doctors were being used to promote the “health” of the brand. The doctors knew what they were promoting. With opioids, the doctors were more or less innocent bystanders just trying to do their jobs. In the beginning, they were not aware of the damage and deaths they were causing.

The conduct of the doctors in both cases was different. Physicians are supposed to do no harm. While promoting certain tobacco products they were aware that all smoking caused some type of lung irritation. However, they still promoted the products they believed to be less damaging even though there was still damage occurring. When prescribing opioids the doctors were trying to give their patients pain relief. They were unaware of the risk of continuous consumption. The two cases are not morally equivalent.

Facione, P. & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Thinking critically. 3 . Ed. Pearson:Boston, MA.

Little, B. (2018, September 13). When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking- endorsement (https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement)

Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific

rd

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/118358)

Monica Hernandez (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/118358) Thursday

” Reply #

!

Hi Jessica,

I agree with your post that Doctors have been taking on the blame. It is hard to not blame a doctor because they study medicine and therefore are credible sources, making patients and other family members be able to confide in them.

For many, Physicians are a place to feel reassured and feel safe with the medicine they prescribe like the article mentions.

Thank you for this post!

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 24 of 42

 

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/139028)

Brian Tipton (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/139028) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Hello Professor and Class,

The tobacco industry was quite smart in the beginning. The companies used advertisements with physicians to promote tobacco use. Granted, this was a time when it was unclear that smoking was a leading cause of lung cancer. The more advertisements including healthcare workers, the more people did not see it having any extensive health concerns. This promoted the increase of sales with select brands. It was seen as the pricier cigarettes were better and less harmful than a less expensive brand. The dollar signs increase promotion from physicians until it was proven the horrible health concerns associated with tobacco use.

Opiates have become the drug to use. Physicians used opiates to help control and treat pain in patients. Initially the addiction side of the drugs were not known or at lest to the extent. Once the dollar signs started rolling in to pharmaceutical companies, the companies started promoting the use by doctors to help control patients pain and discomfort. Once it was seen as serious situation it was too late to shut it down. Some doctors wanted to get control of it and others, like the pharmaceutical companies saw monetary incentives to continue prescribing.

When looking at these concepts it is clear to see that both cause great harm and are highly addictive to people. People today do not seem to really care about the risks of cigarette smoking and by the time they do see the symptoms they are addicted. Opiate users feel they can use them and not become addicted because they are prescribed by physicians. The sad fact is you have physicians trying to eliminate the over use and those physicians that see dollar signs and keep prescribing opiates.

Little, B. (2018, September 13). When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking- endorsement (https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement)

Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-who-is-to-blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 25 of 42

 

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Aug 13 at 8:39am

” Reply #

!

Brian, thank you for your post for this week. Just out of curiosity, why do you say the ad companies were smart in using physicians? What are your thoughts as to whether these two instances were morally equivalent?

Let’s look at recognizing errors of generalization, analogy, and application of a general principle. What are your thoughts about the sample?

I called the local vet to inquire about the risk of spaying adult cats and dogs (as opposed to spaying them at six months of age, the traditionally recommended age) and was told she’d performed five adult cat and dog spays that month and there had been no complications with any of them. I concluded that there was no risk involved in spaying adult cats and dogs.

Reference

Tittle, P. (2014). Critical thinking: An appeal to reason.Rutledge:NY.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/145323)

Ashlyn Nichols (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/145323) Wednesday

!

Hello Everyone,

These two situations are comparable because they both involve the doctors encouraging these horrific habits. Of course not intentionally but these health risk most definitely were developed by the doctors/physicians. For example tobacco advertising took on a whole new meaning when “ad campaigns featuring physicians developed through the early 1950s, tobacco executives used the doctor image to assure the consumer that their respective brands were safe” (Gardner, M., & Brandt, A., 2006). Obviously most individuals would see that a doctor is encouraging these actions it has to be safe! The opioid addiction sometimes forms from “overprescribe opioids, just as we overprescribe antibiotics” (Hirsch, R., 2017) without intentionally doing so. The doctors are the ones to blame in these situations.

These situations are different because the doctors were aware of what they were promoting.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 26 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

They simply were being used t promote the “health” of the brand. Sadly, opioid, doctors were not aware of the consequences and actions the patient could possibly face. Therefore, I’d say they are innocent and simply trying to do their job in the correct manner. Everything is sadly trial and error back in the day. I would say the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis. Both cause harm to individuals and both are extremely addictive. It also seems in both situations most of the time people don’t understand fully the risks they are taking with either one. They enjoy their actions for the time being not knowing the harm that will follow. People are convinced that both are not as harmful just for personal purposes.

References:

Hirsch, R. (2017). The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/)

Gardner, M., & Brandt, A. (2006, February). “The doctors’ choice is America’s choice”: The physician in US cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

!

Ashlyn, thank you for your sharing your thoughts for this week. What are your thoughts as to why physicians allowed themselves to be used in these ad campaigns many years ago?

Determine whether the following is a weak or false analogy. Explain your answer.

This scenario is intended to be analogous to the development of nuclear power. The Routleys are suggesting that since the scenario described is unjustified, so too is the development of nuclear power.] A long-distance country train has just pulled out. The train, which is crowded, carries both passengers and freight. At an early stop in the journey, someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. All of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. If the container should break, the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. What might the consigner of the parcel say to try to justify it? (Richard and Val Routley (also known as

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 27 of 42

 

 

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Aug 13 at 8:38am

” Reply #

Richard Sylvan and Val Plumwood), “Nuclear Power—Some Ethical and Social Dimensions,” in Tom Regan and Donald Van De Veer, eds., And Justice for All: New Introductory Essays in Ethics and Public Policy, 1982)

Reference

Tittle, P. (2014). Critical thinking: An appeal to reason.Rutledge:NY.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/145531)

Amanda Torres (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/145531) Wednesday

!

Hello everybody,

This weeks prompt was really interesting to me, having never smoked before I can’t really understand the appeal, but these articles and journals were great reads. These two situations are comparable because they both have doctors at the forefront of the situation. In terms of tobacco and smoking, doctors were the poster children for promoting certain types of cigarettes that were “safer” to smoke. For the opioids, again, doctors are the ones in the middle because they are the ones prescribing them. In both of these situations people are trusting of these doctors because of their medical backgrounds and degrees. Doctors are the ones who help us feel better or fix us, so it’s hard to imagine them doing the opposite for us.

These situations are different because in the first situation, regarding smoking and tobacco use, these doctors were taking a stand on tobacco that influenced the lives of others. On quote I found from the “Doctors Choice” article was “these advertisements are a powerful reminder of the cultural authority physicians and medicine held in American society during the mid-20th century.” (Gardner, 2006) These MD’s not only agreed with these claims but many used cigarettes themselves, really solidifying their choice on the matter. To counter, the opioid issue is a little different because these doctors aren’t taking the opioids and promoting for others to use them. These doctors prescribe them to help with a patient’s pain, but they cannot control how often a person takes them once prescribed. They can give information and warn about the dangers of addiction, but they cannot be the only one to blame when it comes to addiction.

If we apply the conduct of doctors and tobacco advertisers with doctors and the opioid crisis I believe both are morally equivalent. Both of these situations are highly addictive and dangerous to

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 28 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

patients/people around the world. In both situations it’s clear that citizens don’t understand the dangers of both substances, and thats where the real danger lies. One quote I found from an article really made me think about these two subjects and healthcare in general. “If a child went to school yet was unable to read or perform basic math, we’d blame it on the inadequacy of the education he received. Similarly, if doctors finish medical school and postgraduate programs without adequate knowledge about opioids, it’s the fault of those who taught them.” (King, 2018) References:

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

King, S. A. (2018). The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/opioid-epidemic-who-blame

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

” Reply #

!

Amanda, thank you for your post for this week. Based on your comment that “…doctors cannot control how often a person takes them once prescribed”, (which by the way is absolutely true), you made a very valid point here particularly when it comes to individuals becoming addicted.

Determine whether the following is a weak or false analogy. Explain your answer.

We should license parents. After all, we already license pilots, scuba divers, plumbers, electricians, teachers, veterinarians, cab drivers, soil testers, and television repair people … Are our TVs and toilets more important to us than our children? (Based on Roger McIntire, “Parenthood Training or Mandatory Birth Control: Take Your Choice,” Psychology Today, October 1973)

Reference

Jackson, D., & Newberry, P. (2016). Critical thinking: A user’s manual (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/157292)

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 29 of 42

 

 

Marija Mozuraityte (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/157292) Wednesday

” Reply #

!

Hello class,

 

Early in the 1930s, physicians were the front face of promoting tobacco use. During this time period smoking cigarettes/cigars was a norm to an average individual including men, women, and even pregenate women. As there were no regulations and knowledge of the actual harm and dangers to the human body by inhaling these substances. Tobacco companies would hire physicians to advocate for the usage of tobacco as it would persuade the consumers that it was safe to do so since a medical professional said so. It wasn’t until 1964 that the U.S Surgeon General Luther Terry declared a definite link between lung cancer and smoking.

In the 1990s, pharmaceutical companies mislead physicians to believe that prescription opioids would not become addictive to a consumer. Shortly after it became apparent that this was in fact a lie as doctors prescribed these medications, over prescribed them, consumers began to misuse and overuse these prescriptions leading to the dangers of addiction. In 2017, the cases began to increase rapidly and so did the death rates that took place as an effect of opioid addiction.

These two different situations are comparable as they both have two common denominators – advocation by physicians and supply from drug companies. In the 1930s, doctors were simply mislead by tobacco companies while as in the 1990s, doctors were misled by pharmaceutical companies. Ways in which these situations are different is because at the beginning of each example, there were not any research available to question either of the claims made by the drug companies.

I believe both situations are morally equivalent. Physicians suggested the use of drugs that in turn created severe side effects; lung cancer and or addiction to consumers.

 

References:

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020, June 10). Opioid Overdose Crisis. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

!

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 30 of 42

 

 

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Aug 13 at 8:38am

” Reply #

Marija, thank you for your post for this week. Great argument as to whether these situations were morally equivalent.

Determine whether the following is a weak or false analogy. Explain your answer.

We should license parents. After all, we already license pilots, scuba divers, plumbers, electricians, teachers, veterinarians, cab drivers, soil testers, and television repair people … Are our TVs and toilets more important to us than our children? (Based on Roger McIntire, “Parenthood Training or Mandatory Birth Control: Take Your Choice,” Psychology Today, October 1973)

Reference

Tittle, P. (2014). Critical thinking: An appeal to reason.Rutledge:NY.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/84538)

Scott O’Malley (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/84538) Thursday

!

The similarities of the 1930s physicians and today’s physicians is that they were “bought” by two companies to promote for their product. In the 1930s, it was Camel cigarettes and in the 2000s it is Purdue Pharmaceuticals. In both situations, the physicians had lack of knowledge of the health effects on each product. Later on, both times the physicians learned the adverse effects of cigarettes and doctors stopped promoting the use of them.

The difference between the two times is that in the 1930s, doctors didn’t have all the technology and access to information or lab tests as they do now. In the 1930s cigarette smoking was normal way of life for people. Now a days though, people have started to abuse opioids such as oxycodone. The difference between the cigarette promoting and now the opioids is that the doctors are the ones handing out the pills to patients. Doctors have been prescribing more pills then patients need and therefore extra are available for patients to abuse and become addicted to. Unlike cigarettes, doctors still use opioids in the hospital settings.

I believe cigarette and opioid promoting are morally equivalent because they both have affected the lives of their patients. Doctors shouldn’t be promoting non-medical products such as they did in the 30s with cigarettes. They also should not be pushing opioids because of the side effects.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 31 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

 

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Aug 13 at 8:38am

” Reply #

!

Scott, thank you for your post for this week and sharing your thoughts. Good argument.

Determine whether the following is a weak or false analogy. Explain your answer.

Just as a football player does not become great without pain, so too with a pianist. I’ll bet every great football player has at one time or another torn muscles, ligaments, or tendons; many have broken something; surely all have come away from practice bruised. So you want to be great? You want to be a concert pianist one day, a virtuoso? Then I want to see you hurt! I want to see you bleed, I want to see sprained or crushed fingers!

Reference

Tittle, P. (2014). Critical thinking: An appeal to reason.Rutledge:NY.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/144435)

Lorika Roche (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/144435) Thursday

!

Hello Professor and class,

The association of doctors with tobacco and the association of doctors with opioids are similar because

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 32 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

of the use of physicians to what was not yet known as harmful products. However, with tobacco, companies used physicians to promote the “benefits” of their brand compared to others (Gardner M. N., Brandt, A. M., 2006). The use of nicotine was questionable and worrisome to the public, so the best way to promote them was to show physicians, the people in charge of general health, used the products as well. With opioids, physicians were not initially aware of the damage caused by them because pharmaceutical companies were deceitful with their advertisements (Hirsch, R., 2017). Physicians, overall, only wanted to decrease the pain their patients had, not cause addiction.

The association of doctors in both of these situations are of equal moral equivalence. The outcome from continued use of tobacco and opioids were not yet known when they initially gained widespread use, however they both caused thousands of people harm. Physicians eventually became against the use of both tobacco and opioids, but the damage was already done. The use of opioids caused physicians to unintentionally hurt patients due to aggressive and misleading pharmaceutical advertisements. The use of tobacco caused physicians to hurt the general public by promoting some brands as more beneficial than the other.

 

References

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

!

Lorika, thank you for your post for this week and sharing your thoughts. Question: Do you place blame on the doctors or the companies? Explain your answer.

Identifying the arguments below. What type of argument is the following and how do you know?

#1 As long as we have capital punishment for people who kill other people, we should apply the same principle to corporations: corporations whose activities kill people, immediately or in the long-term, directly or indirectly (through destroying water and the natural resources needed to produce food) should also be put to death—their corporate existence should be ended, their assets taken and sold at public auction. (Inspired by comments of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York State)

#2 Anyone who has ever struggled to fix a paper jam in a copier knows that most machines

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 33 of 42

 

 

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Aug 13 at 8:38am

” Reply #

aren’t very adaptable. When machines break, they don’t release a host of component parts to heal themselves. They remain broken until someone calls tech support. Likewise, with the exception of the virtual machines of software, most technology isn’t capable of adaptive self- assembly. (Steven Johnson, “Self-Assembling Robots, Discover, April 2005)

Reference

Tittle, P. (2014). Critical thinking: An appeal to reason.Rutledge:NY.

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138071)

Danin Sibert (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138071) Yesterday

” Reply #

!

Hi Lorkia,

I agree that the situations are morally equivalent, but it is important to recognize that there are doctors out there who intentionally overprescribe opioids to patients to promote or keep an addiction going. I think it is sickening, and I would like to think that this situation would one day disappear. “In 2016, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out new guidelines on opioids and treating patients with chronic pain. The guidelines emphasized non-drug and non- opioid alternatives” (Court, 2020). Hopefully more and more doctors will choose alternatives rather than opioids.

 

Court, E. (n.d.). Health-Records Company Pushed Opioids to Doctors in Secret Deal With Drugmaker. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020, from https://eds-b-ebscohost- com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=956bf324-6041-4515-8c7c- aa46d7b32d7b%40pdc-v- sessmgr04&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=141459248&db= bth.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/72553)

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 34 of 42

 

 

Navjeet Mattu (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/72553) Thursday

!

As doctors were promoting the use of tobacco at one point in history, not too long ago they were also promoting the use of opioids. These providers, unaware of the dangers, prescribed these products to their patients. In the early 1900’s, doctors were the main face of cigarettes, as now they are the ones educating us against them, what happened? As more and more studies came out linking smoking to lung cancer/lung diseases, the tobacco companies knew they were no longer going to be able to use medical providers as a face for marketing. Doctors were taught limited to nothing regarding addiction, even though there were studies regarding opioid drugs being dangerous for patients more than 25 years ago (King, 2018).

These two situations are comparable because in both places, doctors were the ones prescribing and promoting, not some uneducated person with no training in medicine. They are different because with tobacco products, there was not as much education/research on it showing how it caused lung diseases, even cancer. As studies rolled around, MDs were no longer the face. The opposite is for opioids, even though there are claims stating doctors were not educated enough in pain management/substance abuse, they should have been alert enough to find this information due to studies done in the past. Even though pharmaceutical companies would have MD’s promote their medications, encourage them of the benefits, as a provider, it is their job to understand the good and bad before giving it to their patients. But as more and more awareness is being created about opioid abuse, and more monitoring on providers prescribing to their patients, it has helped.

I believe they are both morally equivalent because they both are wrong for the health, without the proper education for substance abuse, opioids are just as if anything more dangerous than tobacco. They both are addicting and need proper help if misused, they can cause diseases, cause your body to depend on something it really does not need or cause any benefit. As understandable, some people in extreme pain will need opioids, but it is important to make sure they are properly consulted on opioids, as most patients taking opioids start due to their doctor (not multiple) prescribing it for the patient routinely.

Reference:

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Lembke, A. (2016). Drug dealer, MD: how doctors were duped, patients got hooked, and why it’s so hard to stop. JHU Press.

King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 35 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site

 

 

Navi

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Aug 13 at 8:37am

” Reply #

!

Navjeet, thank you for posting your thoughts for this week’s discussion. Great points on the moral equivalence in your estimation as well as your point of prescribing opioids discriminately.

Identifying the arguments below. What type of argument is the following and how do you know?

#1 Having an organ transplant is like cannibalism. And cannibalism is wrong. So organ transplants are wrong.

#2 Pernecsky: I can’t believe my pay was reduced because I was doing personal stuff on company time!

Santoz: Well, it’s like stealing supplies from the storeroom—shouldn’t you have to pay for that?

#3 Here in the West, poverty means a bad life. But poverty in the Third World means death. (Fareed Zakaria, “The Education of Paul Wolfowitz,” Newsweek, March 28, 2005)

Reference

Tittle, P. (2014). Critical thinking: An appeal to reason.Rutledge:NY.

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138709)

Britney Parkerton (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138709) Thursday

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 36 of 42

 

 

!

Hello Professor Sheffield and class,

It is very interesting to compare these two huge epidemics and the roles the physicians did and do play in them. In an article I found titled On Your Doctor’s Orders (2019), the author argues “This new crisis, and the role that physicians have in its making, mirrors the rise and eventual fall of the cigarette in the twentieth century. As the addictive effects of nicotine were being realized and anti-smoking campaigns grew in intensity, the opioid epidemic was in its fledgling stages.” Many changes have been made to try to combat the opioid crisis in the last few years as people realize the addictive nature of them. This is very similar to tobacco back before it was known to cause severe harm. Unfortunately, despite many efforts to help improve both epidemics both are still prevalent in the United States.

The two situations are similar in the sense that they both involved physicians being part of the problem. In the article published in the American Journal of Public health (2006) physicians were promoting camel cigarettes as being the “doctor’s choice” of cigarettes. Then, in the article published in the Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association (2017), the author places a huge part of the blame of the opioid epidemic on physicians over prescribing pain medications. Another noteworthy observation is how back in the 1930s-1950s tobacco companies enticed physicians to advertise their products by providing them cartons of free cigarettes. The way the pharmaceutical reps hound and bribe physicians to use and promote their products is also comparable. Lastly, in both cases fault lies in lack of education at the time. When doctor’s promoted cigarettes it was back before they knew that they caused harm. In the article by King, he places a lot of the blame on the lack of education for physicians on proper pain management in medical school.

The ways these situations differ was that back in the 1930s-1950s a lot less was known about the irreparable harm that cigarettes have on the body. Many physicians did smoke back then before they realized the consequences and openly advertised with these tobacco companies. Now that more is known about cigarettes physicians’ faces have been taken off them, and according to Gardner and Brandt (2006) there are less than 4% of physicians that smoke today in the United States (pg. 113). On the other hand, many physicians are still prescribing these addicting pain medications even though studies have been posted from up the 25 years ago linking pain medications and their addictive qualities.

Personally, I do not believe that both situations are morally equivalent. In the situation of promoting tobacco the physicians were unaware of the health complications that it could cause. Once they determined that there were adverse side effects, they stopped promoting the product. However, in the case of opioids there has been research done for many years that physicians ignored. Only now, with stricter regulations are physicians turning to less potent prescription medications. While not all physicians can be lumped into either category, I feel many knew the ramifications of prescribing these medications. In one of the articles it even mentioned physicians meeting up with their patients at coffee shops to sell them prescriptions for pain medications.

Reference

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 37 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-who-is-to-blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/

Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222–232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654

Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: It’s time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/

Szalanczy, A. (2019). On your doctor’s orders. Hektoen International Journal. Retrieved from https://hekint.org/2019/05/07/on-your-doctors-orders/ (https://hekint.org/2019/05/07/on-your- doctors-orders/)

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Thursday

!

Britney, thanks for posting this week. I like how you wrote the situations were different but not morally equivalent.

For each of the following analogical arguments, consider whether the listed adjustments to the argument would strengthen, weaken, or result in no change to the strength of the original argument.

1. Organic spinach from California was contaminated with colibacteria. Thus, organic lettuce could also be contaminated with E. coli bacteria.

a Suppose the lettuce was from California.

b Suppose the lettuce was not organic.

c Suppose that chard and arugula were also contaminated with E. colibacteria.

d Suppose it was broccoli, not lettuce, that had been contaminated with E. colibacteria.

 

2. The new sports car Bob recently bought is equipped with a powerful V-8 engine, four-speed transmission, and racing clutch. The previous sports car Bob owned also had a V-8 engine, four- speed transmission, and racing clutch. So the new car is similar to the old one. Because Bob got several speeding tickets with his old car, he’s probably going to get speeding tickets with the new one.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 38 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

a Suppose Bob has owned six other sports cars and he has gotten a speeding ticket driving each of them.

b Suppose Bob’s old car was turbocharged and so is his new one.

c Suppose Bob’s new car has a four-cylinder engine.

d Suppose Bob’s old car was black and his new one is red.

3. The stocks that Harold purchased are from Internet startups, are highly rated, and are selling for a low price. The stocks that Ashley bought are also from Internet startups, are highly rated, and are selling for a low price. Thus, Harold’s stocks are similar to Ashley’s stocks. Since Ashley’s stocks made a 10% profit in the first year, Harold can expect his stocks to make at least a 10% profit, too.

a Suppose Gregg also purchased stocks from Internet startups that were highly rated and selling for a low price and they also made a 10% profit in the first year.

b Suppose Harold bought stocks that were low-rated.

c Suppose Harold bought stocks that were from a traditional brick-and-mortar business.

d Suppose Harold bought his stocks from a broker.

 

Reference

Jackson, D., & Newberry, P. (2016). Critical thinking: A user’s manual (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138709)

Britney Parkerton (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/138709) 1:27am

!

Hello Professor Sheffield,

a Suppose the lettuce was from California.

1. Organic spinach from California was contaminated withcolibacteria. Thus, organic lettuce could also be contaminated with E. colibacteria.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 39 of 42

 

 

Adds to the argument

b Suppose the lettuce was not organic.

Weakens argument

c Suppose that chard and arugula were also contaminated with E. colibacteria.

No change

d Suppose it was broccoli, not lettuce, that had been contaminated with E. colibacteria.

Weakens argument

 

a Suppose Bob has owned six other sports cars and he has gotten a speeding ticket driving each of them.

Adds to argument

b Suppose Bob’s old car was turbocharged and so is his new one.

Adds to argument

c Suppose Bob’s new car has a four-cylinder engine.

Weakens argument

d Suppose Bob’s old car was black and his new one is red.

No change

a Suppose Gregg also purchased stocks from Internet startups that were highly rated and selling for a low price and they also made a 10% profit in the first year.

Adds to argument

2. The new sports car Bob recently bought is equipped with a powerful V-8 engine, four- speed transmission, and racing clutch. The previous sports car Bob owned also had a V-8 engine, four-speed transmission, and racing clutch. So the new car is similar to the old one. Because Bob got several speeding tickets with his old car, he’s probably going to get speeding tickets with the new one.

3. The stocks that Harold purchased are from Internet startups, are highly rated, and are selling for a low price. The stocks that Ashley bought are also from Internet startups, are highly rated, and are selling for a low price. Thus, Harold’s stocks are similar to Ashley’s stocks. Since Ashley’s stocks made a 10% profit in the first year, Harold can expect his stocks to make at least a 10% profit, too.

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 40 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

b Suppose Harold bought stocks that were low-rated.

Weakens argument

c Suppose Harold bought stocks that were from a traditional brick-and-mortar business.

No change

d Suppose Harold bought his stocks from a broker.

Adds to argument

 

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/120562)

Dianne Cruz (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/120562) Thursday

!

We all know how bad smoking can be towards your body. I am currently taking pathophysiology and smoking is a big risk factor for many diseases, especially when you smoke for a long period of time. Between the 1930s and 1950s doctors became the face of cigarette advertisements, but why ? When the public started gaining knowledge of how bad smoking was the cigarette companies had to do something to save it from going downwards. They knew that the public listened to doctors and physicians for the simple reason that they saved people, they were smart, and had years of experience. That’s how physicians in cigarette advertisements were born, even though these advertisements used fake physicians and they were all actors the public felt in a way safe smoking because the image of a doctor saying smoking was okay was embedded in their head. The advertisements were a bit confusing as well, “In one ad a company would say cigarettes aren’t harmful and then in other ads they would say our cigarettes are less harmful than the other brands” (Hematology/Oncology, n.d). Even though the ads did not make sense people were blind to that fact because they were now able to smoke and say it was okay because actors dressed like doctors said it was,

The opioid crisis is different, back then physicians didn’t have the research we have now about the addiction of opioids. “In the mid-to-late 1990s, manufacturers of prescription opioids assured physicians that these drugs would not make patients with pain become patients with substance use disorders”(The opioid epidemic: What is the physician’s responsibility? 2020) I think both the cigarette and opioids situation compare because at the end of they day, both were harming people. They are

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 41 of 42

 

 

” Reply #

different though because back then it was known smoking could cause harm. It was not as known that opioids could become addictive.

The opioid epidemic: What is the physician’s responsibility? (2020, August 11). Retrieved from https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/opioid-epidemic-what-physician-s-responsibility (https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/opioid-epidemic-what-physician-s-responsibility)

(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor) Yesterday

” Reply #

!

Dianne, thanks for posting to the second discussion for this week. So you opine that because during the earlier times since smoking was known as harmful but today opioids were/are not known to be harmful/addictive, there is no correlation of ethical morality? I am just trying to determine what you think and support.

Rewrite each argument as a standard form categorical syllogism and determine the validity of the argument.

1 Mascots are the only animals allowed in the gym. Thus, only mascots are nuisances, since the only animals allowed in the gym are nuisances.

2 Every war crime is beyond any kind of moral justification. It demeans innocent humans, and anything that demeans innocent humans is beyond any kind of moral justification.

3 Avatars are sacred figures, and shamans are, too. So avatars are shamans.

Reference

Jackson, D., & Newberry, P. (2016). Critical thinking: A user’s manual (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

 

8/15/20, 4:34 AM Page 42 of 42

Calculate Price


Price (USD)
$

SOLVED !!

10% OFF For This Assignment.

Use Coupon Code GET10 to claim 10% Discount This Month!!