Sunday, November 17, 2013

    In a comment to classmate Ardiana Shillova's blog post titled, America, "The Land of the Free, unless you want Medical Marijuana.",http://simplyforeign.blogspot.com/ I wrote:

    I completely agree with your blog. I think all too often the government tries to overstep its boundaries and tries to influence people's freedom of choice. When it comes to people's health care I think it is up to the individual and the individual alone as to how they choose to treat their illness or condition.  In this situation I think it is absolutely the individual's choice whether or not they want to receive medical marijuana as a treatment. The doctor is of course there to diagnose your condition and then propose a treatment ; the main word being propose. I don't think any doctor, or any other person whether it be government or otherwise, has the right to tell someone what treatment they are restricted from. At that point they are pretty much forcing the person to choose an alternative treatment, one that might not be as effective. 
    All people are entitled to their opinions. The people who oppose the idea of using medical marijuana are well within their rights to refuse it. Those people can choose alternative choices and never have to touch the drug. I believe their reasons against medical marijuana, whether they be moral, religious, or otherwise, are no less valid than those who are for it. I don't know if all the statistics that say marijuana is the cause of accidents or that it is highly addictive are true, I have not done enough research on those topics to make an assessment, but if people want to hold it as truth that's fine with me.  I think where the line is crossed is when those people start trying to impose their ideas on everyone else. It is fine if they think it's bad or immoral and they don't want to use it for themselves or their family but that doesn't give them the right to try to shove their ideas down everyone else's throats. 
     I think your point about your friends pain and the fact that people can not truly understand other's perception of pain is very true. At hospitals they grade pain on an individualized scale. It's very much a case by case scenario, there is no standard scale for everyone. This makes it very hard to relate to people's own perception of their pain. Doctors should be there to do everything they can to provide the patient with every option to get healthy not restricting them.
    You're right, in the end it all goes back to human choice and freedom. We should all have the opportunity to choose how we receive our healthcare and by what means. This nation does preach freedom, but if we continue to make decisions that limit the people's freedom of choice I'm afraid America is headed down a slippery slope.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

      In an article in the Washington Post,Senate votes to ban discrimination against gay and tran,
reporter Ed O'keefe reports on the passing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by Congress. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would ban employers from firing, refusing to hire or discriminating against workers or job applicants based on their sexual orientation or
gender identity. Though most states already have laws like this in place, there are some,
namely Virginia, who have no laws and discrimination is allowed to run rampant in the
workplace. The argument presented against passing ENDA came from Sen. Daniel Coats
who claimed that ENDA "diminishes" the religious freedom of organizations and
employers who may feel compelled to hire people who hold religious views contrary to
the views of the organization.
     The ideal presented that putting a legal end to the discrimination of people based
on their sexual orientation or legal identity diminishes religious freedom is bogus. The
issue is not religious freedom. I understand that there are religions who condemn
homosexuals because their relationships don't produce children. The followers of those
religions should still not be allowed to discriminate against a homosexual man or woman
because that homosexual's beliefs are not the same. Also, if a Christian organization, for
example, did not want to hire a homosexual man because they do not agree with his
homosexuality despite the fact that he has proclaimed himself a Christian, they should
not be allowed to reject his application based on that disagreement of personal beliefs.
     I believe that every man or woman's beliefs are theirs personally, not to be laid out on
display and judged by an employer. If two Buddhists, two Christians, or two Baha'is
disagree on the way the other of their same religion is following their Faith, that is
personal and should not be brought in to the workplace. It is unprofessional. It is not
okay to deny equality based on the fear that you might have to work with someone who
has different beliefs or lives their life in a different manner than you.