The Eating of French Fries - Essay Example

Final Exam HUMAN EXPERIMENT The purpose of this paper is to establish a relationship between the eating of French fries and the gaining of weight in children aged 14 years of age. The gaining of weight is widely associated with eating of foods that can be classified under the term ‘junk foods.’ These include fatty like the French fries in question (Tulloch 34). Hypothesis In A Given Period Of Time, 14-Year-Old Students Who Eat French Fries Three Times Per Week Will Gain At Least Two More Pounds Than Students Who Eat French Fries Twice A Week. Introduction The human experiment at hand aims at finding the truth values of the hypothesis stated above. The focus shall be on the relationship between the eating of French fries and weight gain. Many organizations and governments in the world are concerned with the scourge of weight gain which has increased the health risks among the youths and the population in general (Reed 67). Besides tremendously increasing the medical bills towards the caring for this group of individuals, weight gain also reduces the overall productivity of the same individuals which is another reason it is detrimental to the economy. Excessive weight also puts the individual at a higher risk of contracting other diseases that come about due to the individual’s poor health. It is thus of great concern to the various parties that such findings as the one from this experiment be availed to enable them draw the right conclusions about the disease besides formulating the required steps aimed at reducing the negative effects of the disease (Keown 12). This paper shall thus outline the procedure for the carrying out of an experiment to determine the impact of eating French fries on the rate of gaining weight in kids aged 14 years of age. Methodology The methodology for this experiment shall first of all involve the division of the sample made of 14 year-old kids into two groups. The first group shall be made up of children who eat French fries strictly two times in a week while the second one shall contain those who strictly eat French fries three times each week (Rahman 90). The two groups shall each have separate records whereby each child’s weight shall be taken at the start and end of every week for three months. The period chosen upon is long enough to smoothen out the changes that may occur in a single week or for a few days. The days for the measurements shall be on every Monday and Friday of each week. For each child, two columns shall be drawn; one for the Monday readings while the other one shall be for the Friday readings. While the record books for the group of children who eat French fries twice a week shall be colored blue, those for the group of children who eat French fries three times a week shall be colored red to allow a distinction between the two groups (Froding 34). Other factors shall be put into consideration to allow consistency in the recordings. These factors include the harmonization of the two groups’ diets to eliminate disparities that may come about due to other factors from outside of the experiment. Weight gain may result from other types of food eaten by the children and invalidate the data collected for the two groups. Also, health factors shall be put into consideration to eliminate differences in weight that could be the result of health disorders. Independent Variable The independent variable in this experiment shall be the number of days the recordings shall be taken since they shall not be determined be anything else besides the normal counting of days. On average, there shall be 24 of these days for each child over the three months set aside for the experiment (Jackson 78). Dependent Variable The dependent variable in this experiment shall be the weight readings taken from the kids on the two days of the weeks. On average, there shall be twenty four recordings for each child over the three months period set aside for this experiment. Data Analysis The analysis of the data shall be carried out after the three months are over. Having taken the weight readings of the two groups of children over the three months, the data shall be analyzed in the following ways: first of all, the average weekly readings for each child shall be taken by adding the Monday values to the Friday values then dividing by the number of recordings which, in this case, is two (Tulloch 78). The weekly recordings for each kid in the group that eats French fries two times a week shall then be added and divided by the number of children to find the average weight for a single kid per week. The same shall be done for the group of children that takes French fries three times a week. With at least twelve readings for each group, the recordings shall be compared to determine if those who eat French fries thrice a week gained at least two pounds in comparison to those who eat the same kind of food two times a week. 2. Li Yan: a Case for Euthanasia? Twenty-eight years in bed and almost helpless is a very long time for any individual to live with. Human nature dictates that satisfaction in life is achieved through an individual getting involved in some tasks in one way or the other to build the society around them or, in the least, add value to their own lives. Suicidal tendencies are bound to arise due to a feeling of despair and lack of self-worth (Emanuel 30). Given the many needs requiring one to be actively productive, being rendered unable to work for one’s independence is a hard pill to swallow for most people who find themselves in this situation. These have led to a raging debate as to whether one should be allowed to take their own lives as a way of eliminating the feelings described above. There are several reasons as to why one would be allowed or denied to take their own life in an act referred to as euthanasia. These shall be discussed in the following sections of this paper. The reasons in support of euthanasia include the fact that the patient or individual in question deserves happiness as per the Aristotelian and Utilitarian way of thinking. It is every free person’s right to be happy as desired by the person provided no other party is harmed in the process of seeking for their happiness. If the individual cannot attain happiness in their lives, they should be allowed to take the necessary stapes they see fit. If taking one’s life is better than living in misery, that decision should be entrusted with the individual. The second reason is that each individual has a right to privacy, which includes the individual’s control of their own body and choice between the options one has without interference by any individual or law. The third reason for euthanasia is that it is a voluntary act that involves consent from one’s family and other parties with vested interest among them doctors and others. These points show that euthanasia is very different from other activities that end an individual’s life such as suicide. It should thus be in the interest of law makers to allow euthanasia since it is without negative effects besides the fact that a life would be lost (Husted and Husted 28). On the other hand, there also reasons against the application of euthanasia in society. The first one of these points is that euthanasia is pure rejection of the importance and respect for human life. The value attached to human life is so much that many counties are even eliminating the death sentence in their punishment of criminals. It does not make sense therefore to kill a person who has done any wrong on the basis of happiness. The second reason is that people would most definitely commit crimes such as suicide or plain killing in the name of euthanasia in the case it is made legal. There are many cases of people having killed others on the reason that the deceased wanted to die anyway. The legalization of euthanasia would most definitely see to an increase in the number of deaths of this type. A third reason against euthanasia is that most individuals would use it as a means of cutting down on the health care costs that are incurred in treating given patients (Babu 20). As Wesley J Smith once said, “drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about forty US dollars, but that it could take forty thousand US dollars to treat a patient properly so that they do not want the ‘choice’ of assisted suicide” is reason enough for most people to opt for euthanasia as a way of cutting costs. Personally, I would not allow Li to take her life in the name of euthanasia. This is due to the fact that life is valued and cannot be debated upon on the same threshold as other factors. Euthanasia from the patients usually stems from a fear of the future and, for Li’s case; I would seek hired helps to take care of her health and other requirements until she can die of natural causes like anyone else. It is in everyone’s interest to live for the longest time possible and Li Yan has the right to life as a human being (Babu 40). The most influential point of view that has influenced my decision for the above assertion is that of human rights. It would not make sense to take a life in the name of their personal wishes since, as stated above, human life is the most important factor in the world. Every country has a human rights act that prohibits the taking of another person’s life in almost all circumstances. It is thus the duty of every citizen, Li Yan included, to living as long as possible and dying of the most natural causes (Husted and Husted 39). 3. Genetically Engineered Foods Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are organisms, both plants and animals, that have had their genetic structures altered to achieve a given objective most often to enable faster growth or develop resistance to given types of diseases or pests. This field has of recent become so wide to include virtually every organism in the world. Cloning has worked in some animals like sheep but failed in human beings. Genetically modified foods have been for a long time been cause for concern in all the countries of the world. Human rights activists have initiated debates as to whether these foods are fit for human consumption or not. Personally, I am of the opinion that genetically modified foods are not fit for human consumption and a cause for concern owing to the fact that several tests have been done and proved that fact that these foods are detrimental to the health of the consumers in one way or the other (Babu 51). One reason as to why these foods should get the public worried is that there is very little information to the public about the foods and their effects. The consumer has the right to know the contents and the origin of the food they consume. Given that cigarette and beer makers are required by the law to inform consumers that what they consume is harmful to their health. Drug makers are also are required by the law to outline any side effects a given drug has on the consumer (Husted and Husted 78). Likewise, the makers of genetically modified foods should be required by the same law to inform their consumers of any effects that may result from the consumption of these foods if there is nothing to keep the public from knowing. Another reason genetically modified foods are a danger to their consumers is that it has been proven that the modification of genes, which earns the organisms their name, has many aftereffects. Among the genetic modifications include the introduction of viral promoters, antibiotic resistance marker genes, reporter genes and transcription terminators. They aid in the process of modifying the genes of the destination of the organism in which they are introduced into. It has been shown that DNA rarely breaks down fully in digestion in the alimentary canal of the consumers. This thus means that the consumers’ bacteria responsible for digestion may take up the genes and adopt some of the characteristics induced into the animal or plan consumed which is sure way of harming them. Genetic modification in human beings by genes meant for other organisms is harmful to their wellbeing (Froding 66). The insertion of genes into the genome may result into effects that are not intended by the genetic modification. The reactions and other activities that occur during gene modification therefore may create or lead to the formation of unintended substances among them toxins or allergenic compounds which could harm the consumer of these foods. The long term effects of gene modification have been proven to cause undesired changes which are mostly out of control and harmful both to the organism whose genes have been modified and the consumers of the same. Of great concern also is the fact that most genetically modified foods are not tested for safety before being disseminated to the public. No major lab tests are carried out besides those that determine how different the food is from its non-genetically modified counterpart. This has lead to those genetically modified foods that do not have much of a difference from their non-modified versions being labeled as ‘substantially equivalent.’ This is a very dangerous assumption since there have been modifications in the genetic structure of the foods and thus real test should be done to prove their safety to the consumers of the same (Emanuel 67). It does not mean, in another life example, that the fact that two organisms are substantially similar means one is as safe to consume as the other one. These foods should thus be pulled off from the shelves of supermarkets and grocery stores until when the correct information as to their safety, side effects and other factors are known to the general public. Given their widespread availability all over the country, efforts should be made to hold responsible those individuals that are concerned with the making and selling of these foods. Awareness should also be raised among consumers that the effects of these foods are grave and long term oriented to dissuade individuals from consumers products whose effects they may not be aware of. It is the right of the consumer, under the United States Law and any other country’s to know of the effects of whatever it is that they consume. The thinking approach that has greatly influenced the stance taken in this argument therefore is that of the consumer’s rights both to safety and knowledge of what may harm them. The public should thus take the initiative to ensure that there is disclosure as to what these foods contain and their effect so on the consumer (Babu 100). Works Cited Babu, Dinesh. Professional Ethics and Human Values. Chicago: Firewall Media, 2007. Emanuel, Ezekiel. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. London: Oxford University Press, 2008. Froding, Barbro. Virtue Ethics and Human Enhancement. New York: Springer, 2013. Husted, James and Husted, Gladys. Ethical Decision Making in Nursing and Health Care: The Symphonological Approach. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2008. Jackson, Linda. Euthanasia. New York: Heinemann-Raintree, 2005. Keown, John. The Law and Ethics of Medicine: Essays on the Inviolability of Human Life. London: Oxford University Press, 2012. Rahman, Kalili. Professional Ethics and Human Values. New York: Firewall Media, 2008. Reed, Esther. The Ethics of Human Rights: Contested Doctrinal and Moral Issues. New York: Baylor University Press, 2007. Tulloch, Gail. Euthanasia: Choice And Death. New York: Edinburgh University Press, 2005. Read More