Sarcomatoid
Sarcomatoid with http://www.doctors-onthenet.com

Sarcomatoid

Doctors On-the-Net

News for 15-Oct-24

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Health Tip: If Your Child is Cyberbullied

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Used Safely, Donor Breast Milk Can Help Preemie Babies

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Child Deaths Highlight Choking Dangers Posed by Grapes

Source: MedTerms Word of the Day
Epilepsy

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Rest May Not Be Best for Kids After Concussion

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Down Syndrome May Not Be Big Financial Burden on Families

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Growth Charts

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Health Tip: Help Toddlers Develop Stronger Hands

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Baby Crib Ads Show Unsafe Practices, Study Says

Source: MedicineNet Kids Health General
Teens May Not Heed Health Warnings on Cigars

Search the Web
Sarcomatoid
Chemotherapy
Raltitrexed
Ranpirnase
cisplatin
pemetrexed
Anti Metabolites
corticosteroid
Radiotherapy
LPN,

The Best Sarcomatoid website

All the Sarcomatoid information you need to know about is right here. Presented and researched by http://www.doctors-onthenet.com. We've searched the information super highway far and wide to provide you with the best Sarcomatoid site on the internet today. The links below will assist you in your efforts to find the information that you are looking for about
Sarcomatoid.

Sarcomatoid

Doctors on the net resources
Need information for Doctors on the net? Our links will provide you with information on all type of types of Physicians over the internet . For conferencing services to go with your search campagin go to Meetings on the Net - http://www.meetingsonthenet.com
Doctors on the net resources

If you've spent any time on the Internet looking for Sarcomatoid, you've seen those sites that use hype to sell their products. You can't miss hype, with its exclamation points, bold and caps text, and enthusiasm through the roof. But when is hype appropriate and will it really help you with your search for Sarcomatoid ?

If you visit a lot of Sarcomatoid sites on the net, you'll begin to notice that most of them are exactly the same. Sure, they are selling different brands of Sarcomatoid, but on the surface they are about as different as the Olsen twins.

Sarcomatoid

Doctors on the net resources
Need information for Doctors on the net? Our links will provide you with information on all type of types of Physicians over the internet . For conferencing services to go with your search campagin go to Meetings on the Net - http://www.meetingsonthenet.com
Doctors on the net resources

When you're looking for a high quality Sarcomatoid site you know you can rely on, we recommend the above web site. We have taken the hard work out of your Sarcomatoid shopping and narrowed our list of Sarcomatoid websites down to only those of the very best.

Knowing you're getting value for money is very important in buying Sarcomatoid, so by coming to this web site you can rest with the sound knowledge that you are getting the Sarcomatoid you paid for.

Eugenics and the Future of the Human Species

 by: Sam Vaknin

"It is clear that modern medicine has created a serious dilemma ... In the past, there were many children who never survived - they succumbed to various diseases ... But in a sense modern medicine has put natural selection out of commission. Something that has helped one individual over a serious illness can in the long run contribute to weakening the resistance of the whole human race to certain diseases. If we pay absolutely no attention to what is called hereditary hygiene, we could find ourselves facing a degeneration of the human race. Mankind's hereditary potential for resisting serious disease will be weakened."

Jostein Gaarder in "Sophie's World", a bestselling philosophy textbook for adolescents published in Oslo, Norway, in 1991 and, afterwards, throughout the world, having been translated to dozens of languages.

The Nazis regarded the murder of the feeble-minded and the mentally insane - intended to purify the race and maintain hereditary hygiene - as a form of euthanasia. German doctors were enthusiastic proponents of an eugenics movements rooted in 19th century social Darwinism. Luke Gormally writes, in his essay "Walton, Davies, and Boyd" (published in "Euthanasia Examined - Ethical, Clinical, and Legal Perspectives", ed. John Keown, Cambridge University Press, 1995):

"When the jurist Karl Binding and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published their tract The Permission to Destroy Life that is Not Worth Living in 1920 ... their motive was to rid society of the 'human ballast and enormous economic burden' of care for the mentally ill, the handicapped, retarded and deformed children, and the incurably ill. But the reason they invoked to justify the killing of human beings who fell into these categories was that the lives of such human beings were 'not worth living', were 'devoid of value'"

It is this association with the hideous Nazi regime that gave eugenics - a term coined by a relative of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1883 - its bad name. Richard Lynn, of the University of Ulster of North Ireland, thinks that this recoil resulted in "Dysgenics - the genetic deterioration of modern (human) population", as the title of his controversial tome puts it.

The crux of the argument for eugenics is that a host of technological, cultural, and social developments conspired to give rise to negative selection of the weakest, least intelligent, sickest, the habitually criminal, the sexually deviant, the mentally-ill, and the least adapted.

Contraception is more widely used by the affluent and the well-educated than by the destitute and dull. Birth control as practiced in places like China distorted both the sex distribution in the cities - and increased the weight of the rural population (rural couples in China are allowed to have two children rather than the urban one).

Modern medicine and the welfare state collaborate in sustaining alive individuals - mainly the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, the sick, and the genetically defective - who would otherwise have been culled by natural selection to the betterment of the entire species.

Eugenics may be based on a literal understanding of Darwin's metaphor.

The 2002 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say:

"Darwin's description of the process of natural selection as the survival of the fittest in the struggle for life is a metaphor. 'Struggle' does not necessarily mean contention, strife, or combat; 'survival' does not mean that ravages of death are needed to make the selection effective; and 'fittest' is virtually never a single optimal genotype but rather an array of genotypes that collectively enhance population survival rather than extinction. All these considerations are most apposite to consideration of natural selection in humans. Decreasing infant and childhood mortality rates do not necessarily mean that natural selection in the human species no longer operates. Theoretically, natural selection could be very effective if all the children born reached maturity. Two conditions are needed to make this theoretical possibility realized: first, variation in the number of children per family and, second, variation correlated with the genetic properties of the parents. Neither of these conditions is farfetched."

The eugenics debate is only the visible extremity of the Man vs. Nature conundrum. Have we truly conquered nature and extracted ourselves from its determinism? Have we graduated from natural to cultural evolution, from natural to artificial selection, and from genes to memes?

Does the evolutionary process culminate in a being that transcends its genetic baggage, that programs and charts its future, and that allows its weakest and sickest to survive? Supplanting the imperative of the survival of the fittest with a culturally-sensitive principle may be the hallmark of a successful evolution, rather than the beginning of an inexorable decline.

The eugenics movement turns this argument on its head. They accept the premise that the contribution of natural selection to the makeup of future human generations is glacial and negligible. But they reject the conclusion that, having ridden ourselves of its tyranny, we can now let the weak and sick among us survive and multiply. Rather, they propose to replace natural selection with eugenics.

But who, by which authority, and according to what guidelines will administer this man-made culling and decide who is to live and who is to die, who is to breed and who may not? Why select by intelligence and not by courtesy or altruism or church-going - or al of them together? It is here that eugenics fails miserably. Should the criterion be physical, like in ancient Sparta? Should it be mental? Should IQ determine one's fate - or social status or wealth? Different answers yield disparate eugenic programs and target dissimilar groups in the population.

Aren't eugenic criteria liable to be unduly influenced by fashion and cultural bias? Can we agree on a universal eugenic agenda in a world as ethnically and culturally diverse as ours? If we do get it wrong - and the chances are overwhelming - will we not damage our gene pool irreparably and, with it, the future of our species?

And even if many will avoid a slippery slope leading from eugenics to active extermination of "inferior" groups in the general population - can we guarantee that everyone will? How to prevent eugenics from being appropriated by an intrusive, authoritarian, or even murderous state?

Modern eugenicists distance themselves from the crude methods adopted at the beginning of the last century by 29 countries, including Germany, The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Venezuela, Estonia, Argentina, Norway, Denmark, Sweden (until 1976), Brazil, Italy, Greece, and Spain.

They talk about free contraceptives for low-IQ women, vasectomies or tubal ligations for criminals, sperm banks with contributions from high achievers, and incentives for college students to procreate. Modern genetic engineering and biotechnology are readily applicable to eugenic projects. Cloning can serve to preserve the genes of the fittest. Embryo selection and prenatal diagnosis of genetically diseased embryos can reduce the number of the unfit.

But even these innocuous variants of eugenics fly in the face of liberalism. Inequality, claim the proponents of hereditary amelioration, is genetic, not environmental. All men are created unequal and as much subject to the natural laws of heredity as are cows and bees. Inferior people give birth to inferior offspring and, thus, propagate their inferiority.

Even if this were true - which is at best debatable - the question is whether the inferior specimen of our species possess the inalienable right to reproduce? If society is to bear the costs

Google

http://www.meetingsonthenet.com
Real Time Media On The Net | Medical Meetings | Medical Presentations | Medical Meetings | Medical Newscast

Fantasy Football Information   Fantasy Baseball Online   Doctors On-the-Net