David Reimer was a boy who'se penis was burned off during the circumcision process. His parents then decided that instead of telling david what had happened, they would change his sex. This was decided with the help of psychologist John Money, who'se intentions were to conduct a study about how "nurture, not nature, determined gender identity." After davids sex change, to his knowledge he was a girl. A girl struggling through life, very confused about why her interests were that of a boys. Her family was falling apart, not knowing why, but the parents finally told her what had happened. David decided to get another sex change, and a reconstructed penis. Dr. Money had debriefed the study a success. David committed suicide at 38 for obvious reasons.
This experiment is unbelievably unethical. Not only did it take over david's entire life, causing his entire family to lie to him, on top of gender identity and sexuality issues. Which are a struggle enough by itself, but he had lived many years of his life 100 percent believing he was a girl and then to be informed that you were originally a male would be shocking life changing news. To know that your own parents know is unforgivable, and unbareable. No wonder david committed suicide at 38, he had experienced a exceptional amount of trauma physically, mentally, emotionally, socially and individually. This experiment is absolutely apalling, on top of keeping no confidentiality and for the sake of just knowing that a person can just take on the traits of a gender by thinking they are that gender. WHICH by the way this experiment proves was UNSUCCESSFUL.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Monkey Drug Trials- Unethical Study
In the Monkey Drug Trials conducted in 1969, was an animal experiment involving the addiction of drugs, and how man (monkey) respond to drugs when given to them freely. The monkeys were taught how to use (abuse) the drugs, and after the monkeys knew how to do it themselves were left with a supply of each drug. The monkeys then suffered side effects of drug addiction. The drugs given to them were morphine, alcohol, codeine, cocaine, and amphetamines. This drugs are not to be taken lightly and the fact that these monkeys were taking them forcefully and suffering through possible drug overdose, or hallucinagenic episodes called "bad trips" which mess up the human psyche. Considering the monkey is closely related, I would guess that bad trips would also cause damage to the monkey psyche. If it hadn't the monkeys wouldn't have suffered convulsions from cocaine, or suffered from breaking their arm caused by trying to esacape, some tore off fingers (possibly from the hallucinagenic "bad trip"), some ripping their own coats off, and some suffering death.
The experiment was conducted for the sole purpose of watching the effects of drug use and addiction take place. Which is not only unethical, but the experiment could have been conducted on current addicts. I'm sure if the experiment was paid for, the addicts would have no problem becoming a subject. If they're real addicts they would do anything for some money for more drugs, including a study of the addiction of drugs. I think this experiment is unethical for obvious reasons, but let me state them for you.
1. The monkeys had no say in taking the drugs which are harmful physically, emotionally, and mentally.
2. The reason of simply "just watching the effects of drugs" is not a good enough reason to put monkeys through torture and in harms way.
3. The results of the study all had to have ended with death, because one can not help a "recovering addict monkey". They cannot take AA or therapy.
4. Lastly, knowing they all must have died means they were only alive for one reason, the experiment, which is completely unethical. They are living beings.
The experiment was conducted for the sole purpose of watching the effects of drug use and addiction take place. Which is not only unethical, but the experiment could have been conducted on current addicts. I'm sure if the experiment was paid for, the addicts would have no problem becoming a subject. If they're real addicts they would do anything for some money for more drugs, including a study of the addiction of drugs. I think this experiment is unethical for obvious reasons, but let me state them for you.
1. The monkeys had no say in taking the drugs which are harmful physically, emotionally, and mentally.
2. The reason of simply "just watching the effects of drugs" is not a good enough reason to put monkeys through torture and in harms way.
3. The results of the study all had to have ended with death, because one can not help a "recovering addict monkey". They cannot take AA or therapy.
4. Lastly, knowing they all must have died means they were only alive for one reason, the experiment, which is completely unethical. They are living beings.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
The Placebo Effect- What is it?
It works as a form of medication that is said to be the real thing, and is used to see if we could be cured by the mind power that we are basically "tricked" into thinking we are being cured. Yes, it does work, but you must be convinced that it will work.
The article told me that the Placebo is basically all about the brain."Every mental process is represented in the brain. A placebo can't make you feel better without something happening in the brain--neither can the ding of a text message--because the brain is where feelings happen."
This topic relates to the overall topic of perception because when we go to a doctor we have a perception of what the experience will be like. When we go there we expect to be treated and the doctor to look a certain way, even the pill or treatment they will be using to look a certain way. That's all perception, and that all effects on how well we believe we will be treated, which in turn determines the way our body handles the treatment. Our perception that we are getting a real pill ( the placebo) makes us already know the results of our body, that we will be healed. We have learned the rule of "you do something, to get something". So the thought of us just mentally "thinking" we will be healed is not enough. We must have a pill that confirms we will be healed. That is all perception, which invloves only the brain.
The article told me that the Placebo is basically all about the brain."Every mental process is represented in the brain. A placebo can't make you feel better without something happening in the brain--neither can the ding of a text message--because the brain is where feelings happen."
This topic relates to the overall topic of perception because when we go to a doctor we have a perception of what the experience will be like. When we go there we expect to be treated and the doctor to look a certain way, even the pill or treatment they will be using to look a certain way. That's all perception, and that all effects on how well we believe we will be treated, which in turn determines the way our body handles the treatment. Our perception that we are getting a real pill ( the placebo) makes us already know the results of our body, that we will be healed. We have learned the rule of "you do something, to get something". So the thought of us just mentally "thinking" we will be healed is not enough. We must have a pill that confirms we will be healed. That is all perception, which invloves only the brain.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
PTSD Treatments
1. Medication :
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a type of antidepressant medicine. These can help patients feel less sad and worried. They appear to be helpful, and for some people they are very effective. Chemicals in your brain affect the way you feel. For example, when you have depression you may not have enough of a chemical called serotonin. SSRIs raise the level of serotonin in your brain, causing you less depression.
2. CBT Therapy
In cognitive therapy, the therapist helps the patient understand and change how they think about their trauma and its aftermath. The patient will also learn ways to cope with feelings such as anger, guilt, and fear. The patient might blame themselves for things they couldn't have changed. For example, a soldier may feel guilty about decisions he or she had to make during war. This tupe of thearpy helps them understand that the traumatic event you lived through was not your fault.
By pairing this together, the treatment effectiveness can be very much boosted. Only because medication gets you at the correct mood where you need to be to be able to really apply yourself in CBT, and for the patient to really be able to forgive themselves for whatever trauma they have lived through or caused.
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/treatment-ptsd.asp
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a type of antidepressant medicine. These can help patients feel less sad and worried. They appear to be helpful, and for some people they are very effective. Chemicals in your brain affect the way you feel. For example, when you have depression you may not have enough of a chemical called serotonin. SSRIs raise the level of serotonin in your brain, causing you less depression.
2. CBT Therapy
In cognitive therapy, the therapist helps the patient understand and change how they think about their trauma and its aftermath. The patient will also learn ways to cope with feelings such as anger, guilt, and fear. The patient might blame themselves for things they couldn't have changed. For example, a soldier may feel guilty about decisions he or she had to make during war. This tupe of thearpy helps them understand that the traumatic event you lived through was not your fault.
By pairing this together, the treatment effectiveness can be very much boosted. Only because medication gets you at the correct mood where you need to be to be able to really apply yourself in CBT, and for the patient to really be able to forgive themselves for whatever trauma they have lived through or caused.
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/treatment-ptsd.asp
Monday, December 5, 2011
Talarico & Rubin (2003)
Talarico & Rubin set out to find out the difference between regular ordinary everyday memories and FB memories.
Procedure: They asked participants to recall the events of September 11, 2001- 9/11- on four occasions, 1, 7, 42, and 224 days after the attack, then they tested the partcipants' memory for an everyday event that happened around the same time.
Findings: The FBM's were very vivid throughout the study, same with confidence of accuracy, but they were not more consistent than corresponding memories for the everyday event.
Conclusion: The only difference between them was FB memories were more vivid, and participants' have more confidence in their memories.
Limitation: These tests were questionnaires..
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2005/04/is_memory_better_for_shocking.php
also, our psychology book..
Procedure: They asked participants to recall the events of September 11, 2001- 9/11- on four occasions, 1, 7, 42, and 224 days after the attack, then they tested the partcipants' memory for an everyday event that happened around the same time.
Findings: The FBM's were very vivid throughout the study, same with confidence of accuracy, but they were not more consistent than corresponding memories for the everyday event.
Conclusion: The only difference between them was FB memories were more vivid, and participants' have more confidence in their memories.
Limitation: These tests were questionnaires..
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2005/04/is_memory_better_for_shocking.php
also, our psychology book..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)