Chrissy’s Biology Blog

I believe Terry Schiavo was not alive. We always look at someone as either dead or alive. But is there more than 2 categories? For instance, does avoiding death by breathing, eating, drinking , and using the bathroom through a machine, make someone the same kind of alive as a perfectly healthy person? In my mind no. On the other hand, if you are being kept alive by a machine, you certainly are not dead like a body in a grave. (I know you can only be dead or alive, I am not literally suggesting there is some in-between point, I just thought it was an interesting thought that deserved a little bit of my blog space.)

Would I want to be kept “alive” by a machine? In my honest opinion, no, I do not think that would be my choice given I was in a persistent vegetative state for a long while. I just do not believe it is natural. This is a big choice to make, stating that I would rather face death, than lie in a bed for years on end with no hope of improvement. Personally I am pretty comfortable with death. It’s going to happen, why prolong it with unnecessary machines? This is for my life, but what about my child’s life, my best friend’s life, or my sister’s life? I can’t say that I would be the first to jump up and say “Pull the plug, there’s no hope.” Everyone wants to hope, wants to believe that a miracle will happen, but for how long should that hope be help onto? 1 year…….5 years…….15 years? Who gets to decide when someone is really dead? This is a pretty weird question, because most of the time it is obvious, in others death can be questionable.

What is death? There is definitely not one concrete definition. I guess I would have to lean to the theory that when electrical activity in the brain not longer exists permanently, than someone is dead. I guess I am pretty old fashion in saying, if your brain can’t tell the rest of your body organs how to function, than you really are not “meant” to be living anymore. (If this condition appears to be permanent of course.) But if you are someone who wants to be kept on life support as long as possible to prevent death for a few years longer, than that is a perfectly acceptable choice. For me, I don’t see “pulling the plug,” as starving or killing someone. I see it as allowing nature to take its course.

The world is full of contradicting rights.  Should Nazi supporters be able to use hateful protest in the streets of a Jewish community?  The Nazis are exercising their rights of free speech, but yet can be disturbing the peace among a Jewish community and hating them because of religious beliefs.  It seems in this case of “Should children with HIV be allowed in public schools?” also has a few contradicting points.  The child with HIV has the right to a public education and yet the other kids in the school have to right to get an education in a safe environment.

 I believe that a child infected with HIV should be allowed to attend public schools.  If they were not allowed to attend, how would they be provided an “equal education,” which is guaranteed to every citizen of North Carlina by our state’s constitution.  (This same concept is also included in most other state constitutions as well.)  Maybe a tutor at home?  What lucky teacher is going to have to spend all day, everyday teaching a child with HIV.  Is this not “endangering” the teacher just as much or even more then the other children at the school because of increased exposure time?  Or maybe Internet classes will provide an equal education?  Right, I would like to see how much 1st and 2nd graders get out of sitting infront of a computer screen all day.

 Another issue that arises, with excluding the kid with HIV.  If one child is going to be barred from school for being aware of the infection, what about the children who have HIV but do not know?  These children are still attending school, posing the same if not more of a threat than those who know they have HIV.  In order to for this problem to be eliminated, every child would have to be tested, which is something I know the government is not willing to fund.

Although I clearly see both sides of the issue, I do not think you can deny a child of their right to an education because of HIV.  With a little extra monitoring, many potential threats can be eliminated, such as bleeding all over everything after a skinned knee on the playground. 

If I could go back in time and enlighten a scientist of early discovery, I would choose to visit Gregor Mendel, known today as “the father of genetics.”  Mendel grew up in the land which is now the Czech Republic.  At a young age he recived a basic agricutural education and in his adulthood he endured many years of schooling and became a monk.  At the monestry he began to study the many varities of pea plants that were planted there.  He started to breed the different colored plants and keep precise records of the results of each cross and began noticing patterns that appeared in the offspring of crosses of parent pea plants.  Through his many experiments he was able to developed the ideas of dominance and segregation of genes.  He also discovered many laws that are the basis of heredity today such as parents only pass half of their genetic code to each offspring. 

Although Mendel did discover so much in his time, the amount he could have learned was limited because of the tiny amount of information that was known about genes and heredity in his time.  No technology was available, such as microscopes to observe DNA (which they did not know about either.)  So if I could go and have a quick chat with Mr. Mendel I would tell him all about the structure of genes and why some genes are expressed over others.  I would also bring with me some of today’s advanced technology.  With these pieces of information and resources, there is no telling now much more Medel would have discovered.