1.** a minimum of 4 paragraphs, single-spaced, placed in the Blackboard space (no links permitted)
2.** Your Viewpoint Essay MUST contain DETAILED discussion, analysis and response to the reading in question. This means that I need to see at least three actual citations (more are even better) from the article – with page numbers from each citation (not from the same page). Citing a few words or a sentence or two [NOT MORE] from the article in quotes is REQUIRED as is the page number.
3. using an acceptably large font so that it is easily readable by the instructor, I AM SUGGESTING SIZE 16 FONT TO START WITH. IT IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT YOUR VIEWPOINT ESSAYS AND RESPONSES BE POSTED USING A FONT THAT THE INSTRUCTOR CAN READ WITHOUT HAVING TO LEAN FORWARD AND STRAIN HIS EYES TRYING TO MAKE OUT WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN. IN OTHER WORDS, an essay posted that looks like this [see just below], will first receive a warning, then no credit. Use the Questions for the Instructor and Other Students forum to exchange strategies for making this work for you. I suggest using a size 16 font to make sure that your posted work is large enough for the instructor to read easily.
AN ESSAY POSTED THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS, WILL RECEIVE FIRST A WARNING, THEN NO CREDIT. STUDENTS HAVE POSTED USING FONTS EVEN SMALLER, these will not be read by this instructor.
4. separated by at least one blank and empty line ( more than one is fine);
5. Free of incorrectly spelled words and typos – please note the type above is somewhat exaggerated, you don’t need to make it quite that large, this is just to make the point;
6. with at least eight (8) complete and well-formed sentences in each paragraph
7. There MUST be AT LEAST ONE COMPLETELY empty, blank line between the three (or more) paragraphs. and
b) ALL PARAGRAPHS must be posted cleanly using the same large, easy to read font size, and the same font, with no broken text or characters that do not belong.
8. You MUST check your spelling and grammar. Please use spellcheck, which means writing your essay in a word processing format and then posting it in Blackboard – an essay filled with typose [SEE HOW UGLY THEY LOOK?] and spelling errors will not gain credit.
9. Your Response of at least eight (8) complete sentences must make specific reference both to the student’s essay to which you are responding and to the article on which that student has written.
10. Your first four paragraphs must discuss only readings assigned and in the Course Reader. If you want to discuss other, supplementary material, – which is great if you want to do it – you will need to do that in a fifthh additional paragraph.
11. A VIEWPOINT ESSAY MUST be labeled as such – please call it (as an example) Viewpoint Essay John Smith. In other words, Viewpoint Essay followed by both your first and last name. A Response must clearly be labeled as a Response. This may sound complicated, but you will quickly see how it works and will be able to do this easily.
12. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to post your essay using a link. You must post the actual words in the space provided by Blackboard. I WILL NOT READ ESSAYS POSTED USING A LINK.
13. There will be a point deducted every time you misspell the name of an author, even once. This begins in Forum One. Helpful Hint: It is Erik Erikson, NOT Ericksen, or Eriksen, or Erickson
This warning goes for every author in every reading in the course. You may find this a little hard to swallow, but this is for your benefit; it is aimed at helping you to produce QUALITY WORK for this course and for all other related work you will face in your life. In past courses I have been much too tolerant of this, and it has slowly gotten under my skin more and more; therefore this requirement has now become a part of all of my courses.
Examples That Meet (or more than meet) The Required Format for your Viewpoint Essay
John Abramson, the author of Overdosed America the Broken Promise of American Medicine, identifies in Chapter 7 how funds from private industry are corrupting the integrity of the pharmaceutical and medical equipment research studies. Private funding that over the past 30 years has increased exponentially in response to the declining federal grant money issued by the National Health Institute (NIH). (Abramson, p. 94) Up until the 1980’s, the majority of medical research was academically monitored by scientists in the university and clinical setting but as the federal funds shifted to private funding, the university based medical studies shifted to independent research companies that were in business to make a profit. By the year 2000, the independent medical companies claimed two thirds of the research trials and began to assume the organization of the research studies, collection of the data, and the writing of the scientific research summary. (Abramson, p. 95) As the independent companies controlled the formatting of the study and owned the research data, concerns were cast. In 2001, 12 medical editors from periodicals like the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and The Lancet, collectively pulled together to make a statement. A statement “…that the use of commercially sponsored clinical trials “primarily for marketing…makes a mockery of clinical investigation and is a misuse of a powerful tool.” Where the, “medical scientists brought in to conduct research with the independent corporations may have little or no say on the research design, little or no access to the original data, and minimal input on the interpretation of the data.” (Abramson, p. 96)
With greater control over research studies assumed by the independent companies, the stage is set for independent companies to interpret and report information for their commercial benefit. Abramson notes this can be done in various ways as described from page 98 to page 108. One example is studying two comparable drugs by composition and favoring the efficacy of one over the other without revealing that the drugs are two different strengths. Another example is by recommending a product to improve the survival outcome while reporting the data in such a way that it is not clear that the need applies to minor portion of the select population under select conditions. A third practice is to screen the subjects for clinical trials and favor those that are healthier clients who may be the exception rather than the norm in order for the outcome of the treatment plan to look favorable. Another way the independent companies might improve research results is to have the company write the scientific research report in such a way as to favor their cause and then have the medical scientist sign it. A corrupt benefit that Abramson notes for companies that utilize independent research labs is the control they have if the trial studies show adverse effects as in the case of the medication Cardura. As the Cardura data showed that receiving the medication caused increased cardiovascular complications the company consulted with professional publicists to determine their course of action and minimize public fallout. (Abramson, p. 108) Going through the various ways medical research information can be skewed by the independent medical companies conducting their own research is discouraging because the end result is that the bias destroys credibility and trust and compromises the medical practitioners’ ability to treat using best evidence.
Curious to know how medical scientists fit into the framework of the independent research companies, an article in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics was reviewed. In the article, The Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach, by Gary C. Gray sets up mock situations to reflect on the ethical predicaments pharmaceutical funding creates. In the first case the mock study is based on an actual event and involves a university medical professor. The medical professor is hired and financially funded by an independent pharmaceutical company to research a particular medication. (Gray, p. 630) The professor discovers the medication has potential risks and shares the findings with the patients in the clinical study as well as warns fellow medical practitioners. The independent medical company cancels the research project, discontinues all funding, and proceeds to sue the professor. The professor is fired from the University and looses the support from the hospital senior staff. Treatment of the professor stirs ethical concerns and makes it clear that the reputation of the pharmaceutical company is more important than patients and demonstrates that the pharmaceutical company owns the upper hand. When asking an oncologist about research programs, he noted that the studies funded by independent pharmaceutical companies have disclosure forms that the participating physicians must sign.
After reviewing the actions of the mock independent drug company, multiple questions regarding the clinical trail I participated in came to mind. As a cancer patient, I participated in a Phase III clinical trial for the drug Avastin. Phase I of clinical trials is the study to see if humans can tolerate the study drug. Phase II is to see how much a human can tolerate of the study drug, and Phase III is to see how the study drug tests when added to the standard treatment. Although a patient volunteers to participate, a patient must qualify by meeting the screening parameters. Questions are answered and consents signed. The second step for this study was the random placement in one of three study groups. Uncertain of some of the therapies in the other random groups I was reassured a clinical trial participant may drop out of a clinical trial at any time. Insurance companies are obligated to cover routine treatment for patients involved in studies and the clinical trial pays for the treatments specific to the study, in this case the Avastin medication. Funding for this study was through NHI or a federal grant. The clinical trial followed rigorous guidelines for medication dosing, administration, and scheduled tests and exams, and if a participant did not follow the guideline they would be dropped from the study. An alternate plan was written into the study in case of a medication reaction, and parameters to discontinue treatment if a participant suffered from known side effects such as elevated blood pressure, etc. Practitioners refer to the guideline frequently to maintain the integrity of the study. In retrospect and knowing what I do now, there is hope that as a federally funded program the data will have scientific value and not be skewed to promote commercial sales or take advantage of the consumer or mislead a medical practitioner.
Gray, Garry C. “The Ethics Of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach.” Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.3 (2013): 629-634. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
