Critical Reasoning week 6 Discussion 1
Please see the attachment
!
This is a graded discussion: 25 points possible due Aug 17 at 1:59am
Week 6 Discussion 1: Comparative Reasoning
46 46
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Introduction
The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco
industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even
fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco
products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations
and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky &
Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry
advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is
America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).
The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by
trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians
themselves (Hirsch, 2019).
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco
advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:
Textbook: Chapter 12
Lesson 1, 2
Link (library article): The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette
Advertisements, 1930-1953 (https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds-
live&scope=site)
Link (library article): The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame?
(https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site)
Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/)
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 1 of 42
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more
information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 4, 5, 6
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
References
DeShazo, R.D., Johnson, M., Eriator, Ike, Rodenmeyer, K. (2018). Backstories on the U.S.
opioid epidemic. Good intentions gone bad, an industry gone rogue, and watch
dogs gone to sleep. The American Journal of Medicine. Retrieved from
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30084-6/fulltext
Farmer, B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? 60 Minutes.
Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-who-is-to-
blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/
Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the
physician in U.S. cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public
Health, 96(2), 222232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: Its time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri
Medicine. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
In what way are the two situations comparable?
In what way are they different?
Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the
tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your
position and be very specific.
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 2 of 42
” Reply
King, S.A. (2018). The opioid epidemic: Who is to blame? Psychiatric Times.
https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131448427&site=eds-live&scope=site
Wolinsky H., & Brune, T. (1994). The serpent on the staff: The unhealthy politics of the
American Medical Association. Tarcher/Putnam.
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor)
Jun 22, 2020
!
Greetings Students,
You are only required to post an initial answer post and ONE follow-up post in each required
discussion, each week.
Please make your TWO posts each week between Monday and Sunday. Your posts must
occur on different days with the first post occurring by Wednesday. If there are extenuating
circumstances, please communicate with your professor.
Reasoning with Analogies
Analogies are comparisons applied to some specific intellectual purpose
Reasoning with Analogies Involves the Following:
Argument by analogy or reasoning by analogy
Used to explain by comparison
Used simply to give a vivid description or to spice up a narrative
new and unfamiliar to more familiar
abstract and intangible to tangible things
Similarity
Difference
Relevance
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 3 of 42
Edited by Sonja Sheffield (https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891) on Jun 22 at 12:40pm
” Reply #
Finally, in order to Evaluate an Argument by Analogy follow the steps below:
An argument by analogy involves reasoning from one situation to an analogous, or similar, situation;
a conclusion is reached about something on the basis of it being similar to something else. The form
of an argument by analogy is this: A has/is X, and so B applies; C also has/is X, so be sure also
apply. For example, an orange is rounded, and it rolls; this ball is also around, so it should also role.
The strength of an argument by analogy depends on whether there are sufficient relevant similarities
and no relevant dissimilarities. The more relevant similarities there are, and the fewer relevant
dissimilarities, the stronger the argument. For example, roundness is relevant to rolling: since both
the orange and the ball are around, they are similar in that relevant feature.
Consider this. A week analogy is one in which few of the relevant features are similar; in such a
case, your conclusion follows only weakly from your premises (and should therefore be accepted
with minimal confidence). A false analogy is one in which none of the relevant features are similar, or
worse, they’re dissimilar in the relevant aspects; in such a case, you’ve made a faulty comparison
and the argument should be rejected.
Reference
Tittle, P. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason. Routledge, New York, NY.
Inferential: to infer conclusions
Argumentative: to support or defend controversial positions
Useful to distinguish the items compared by the roles they play in the comparison
Analogue(s): the item(s) used as the basis of the comparison
Target(s): the item(s) about which conclusions are drawn or explanations are offered
1. Identify the similarities between the analogue and the target
2. Determine whether this similarity is relevant to the conclusion
3. Determine whether there are significant relevant differences between the analogue and the
target
4. Use these determinations to evaluate the strength of the argument inferred by analogy
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/152005)
Melissa Shetto
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/152005)
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 4 of 42
Thursday
!
Hello everyone
According to what I have gathered, these two situations are comparable and similar in the
way of the role the physicians played in promoting products that were harmful to people, the
doctors who accepted payment or researchers who received funding said or supported whatever
their donors said in exchange of endorsing the tobacco products or opioid based medication. Also,
both cases involved commercialized products that had limited or highly misinterpreted information
which led to the public being misinformed.
According to Gardner and Brandt (2011), smoking had become a norm for both men and
women in the 1930s and 1940s in America. They further highlight how a rise in public concern
over health risks posed by smoking cigarettes led tobacco companies to use physicians
endorsements as an evocative assurance of the safety of their products.
The same is evident in the role physicians played in accelerating the opioid crisis in America.
According to Gale (2016), many medical experts and thought leaders proclaimed that the risks
of addiction to opioids were minimal when treating pain.
These two situations differ from one another in the purpose of the product involved and the
role the physicians played. In one case, physicians were used as part of the advertisement and the
product was for recreational purposes where as in the other case the physician prescribed
medication which in many instances led to addiction and the product was for medical treatment.
I believe that the conduct of physicians in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is
morally equivalent to the conduct of physicians in opioid crisis. I say this because in both cases the
physicians did not act according to the ethical standards of their professional field, in both
instances they chose financial gain above the well fare of the general public. Also, in both
situations the physicians overlooked evidence and information that suggested the possibility of
negative side-effects both tobacco and opioid might have on the users.
When the practice of Medicine loses its ethical foundation and operates by the rules of the
market place rather than the ethical standards, one can expect that disasters like the money-driven
In what way are the two situations comparable?
In what way are they different?
Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to
smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the
opioid crisis?
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 5 of 42
” Reply #
physician caused opioid epidemic to occur again (Gale, 2016).
References
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
(https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139931/pdf/ms113_p0244.pdf
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139931/pdf/ms113_p0244.pdf)
1. Gardner M. N. (2006). The Doctors Choice is Americas Choice. American Public Health
Association. 96. No.2
2. Gale A. H. (2016). Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s
Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?. Missouri medicine, 113(4), 244246.
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)
Caitlyn Pienkowski
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)
Tuesday
!
Hello!
I would say one way the two situations are comparable is that both situations involve physicians to
improve the situation. The advertisements I seen in the article by Gardner, it seems as if they used a
doctors image to promote newer and improved cigarettes that cause less irritation approved by a
physician. And the association of doctors with the opioid crisis uses a physician to bring awareness of
the opioid crisis, since it is a health issue.
Ways they are different is that the situation with cigarettes has to do with awareness of a better product
and the opioid crisis has to do with awareness of a negative situation. They are also in two different
time zones. Physicians in 2020 would never promote a newer and improved brand of cigarettes. Those
advertisements were made in the 1930s-1950s. It was after 1954 industry strategists deemed
Search entries or author Unread $
%
& Subscribe
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 6 of 42
” Reply #
physician images in advertisements no longer credible in the face of growing public concern about the
health evidence implicating cigarettes (Gardner, 2006).
I would say the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry is morally equivalent
to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis. I say this because it is not morally right to promote
cigarette smoking as it is has many negative health effects and no positive effects to a person. It also
sets a contradiction as a physician is suppose to impose healthy lifestyle habits and a promotion of
smoking is not doing that. It might be that one might say the same as to why a physician would
prescribe a pain killer as it can be highly addictive and has many risk factors that play along with it.
“Most doctors hate and fear dealing with pain, and are utterly unequipped to do so; treating pain
properly requires specialized training; it consumes vast amounts of time few doctors have” (Zuger,
2018). If doctors need extra training to know how to treat pain better, they should not be in positions to
continue to prescribe medicine that can contribute to the opioid crisis. I do not believe it is morally right
for a physician to ignore the risks that play into the opioids and deem that the only treatment that can
help with pain.
References
Brandt, M., Gardner, M. (2006). “The doctors’ choice is america’s choice”: The physician in us cigarette
advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), p222-32. Retrieved from
https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds-live&scope=site
(https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=mdc&AN=16434689&site=eds-live&scope=site)
Zuger, A. (2018). A doctor’s guide to what to read on the opioid crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/books/review/opioid-abuse-drug-dealer-anna-
lembke.html?searchResultPosition=4 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/books/review/opioid-
abuse-drug-dealer-anna-lembke.html?searchResultPosition=4)
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor)
Tuesday
!
Caitlyn, thank you for your post to this week’s discussion.
Can you explain what you mean by, “they are also in two different time zones.”? Did you
perhaps mean something different other than time zones since time zones are Eastern time,
central time, mountain time, etc.?
Here is a challenging argument from analogy. Analyze and break down this argument and
Top
!
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 7 of 42
” Reply # (1 like)
test its validity. How good is Norwood Wells analogy? Explain.
An interesting switch was pulled in Rome yesterday by Adam ignored well, and American
Chippewa chief. As he descended his plane from California dressed in full tribal reality, ignored
well announced in the name of the American Indian people that he was taking possession of
Italy by right of discovery in the same way that Christopher Columbus did in America. I
proclaimed this day the day of the discovery of Italy, said ignored well. What right did
Columbus have to discover America when it had already been inhabited for thousands of years?
The same right I now have two come to Italy and proclaim the discovery of your country.
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)
Caitlyn Pienkowski
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)
Wednesday
” Reply #
!
Hi Prof,
I meant to say they are also in two different times. The advertisements were made in the
1930s and in today’s world in 2020 those types of advertisements would never get published
as times have drastically changed over time.
I think Norwood Well’s anaolgy is very well put as he made a very clear and true statement
that Christopher Columbus was not the first man to discover America. It is said Native
Americans were living on the North American land long before it was discovered by a group of
Vikings and then Christopher Columbus came to America. Well is connecting that just because
he went to Italy doesn’t mean that he now was the first to discover it.
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/64315)
Dijana Rahmanovic
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/64315)
Yesterday
!
Hello. I appreciated the last part of your post about the two situations being morally equivalent. I
agree with you that doctors should be held accountable for their participation in both aiding in
advertising tobacco and prescribing opioids blindly to their patients. Consider that, do you think that
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 8 of 42
” Reply #
doctors participate in the opioid crisis or do they work to put a stop to it?
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/118358)
Monica Hernandez
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/118358)
Tuesday
!
Good morning Professor and Class,
Association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising: Before, when when we didn’t
know the cause of lung cancer, Tobacco companies are hired doctors for promotions of tobacco
products. They say that their products are don’t cause irritation to the nose and mouth. But after
identifying tobacco is smoking was the main risk for.lung Cancer doctors didn’t work for promotions
instead they are encouraged to avoid smoking.
Association of doctors with opioid crisis: It causes due to the overuse of opioids. After adding pian as
5th vital signs thus use was grossly increase. An opioid is a main pain killer drug.asone of the doctor
(https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=doctor) statement as antibiotics we prescribed opioids as a pain killer
because we don’t want to feel patient discomfort and need to reduce pain and this also approved by
FAD.
Both are unhealthy for health (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=health) due to over-usage. As doctors
avoiding and encourage to avoid smoking but they can’t able to avoid prescription of opioids because it
was pain relief medicine but dosages are decreasing.
The Opioid pandemic article states, “The role of these physicians can best be described as innocent
bystander. We were truly trying to help the patient”(Hirsch2017).
Opioid crisis depends on the patient , because it causes addiction if we use continuous, better use
with doctor (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=doctor) prescription.
References:
Farmer (https://image-seeker.com/s/?q=Farmer) , B. M. (2019, August 25). The opioid epidemic: Who is
to blame? 60 Minutes. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-opioid-epidemic-
who-is-to-blame-60-minutes-2019-08-25/
Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S.
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 9 of 42
” Reply #
cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health (https://image-
seeker.com/s/?q=Health) , 96(2), 222232. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: Its time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor)
Tuesday
” Reply #
!
Monica, thank you for your post for this week.
Can you provide your response as to the moral equivalency of these two?
Then, identify the following argument as to type. And as best as you are able, identify the
premise(s) and the conclusion.:
In 2010, a mudslide in Germany killed three people. Investigators discovered that a top-secret
underground chemical facility used by the Nazis in World War II had collapsed directly
underneath the site. It is believed, then, that the collapse of this facility triggered the disaster.
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682)
Ashley White
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682)
Tuesday
!
Hi Professor and Class!
The tobacco industry used doctors by using their pictures and getting them to approve a certain brand
of cigarettes. Back in the day they didn’t know that smoking was linking to lung cancer. They wanted
smokers to believe by smoking a certain name brand, such as Camel, you weren’t as at risk for harmful
side effects compared to a cheap pack of off brand cigarettes. Furthermore, to other smokers if doctors
smoke then how can it be bad? Once doctors filled out positive surveys about specific brands the
tobacco industry used this to sell more of their brand.
Opiate abuse has also skyrocketed. The difference in this situation is pharmaceutical industries
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 10 of 42
” Reply #
mislead doctors into thinking they were helping patients with pain when they in fact knew the terrible
effects the drug would have on the patients. Once doctors realized this, you have good doctors that
wanted to stop opiate prescription abuse and you have the doctors, just like the pharmaceutical
companies, continued to abuse their prescription power for their own monetary gain.
I think both concepts are both morally equivalent. Both cause harm to people and both are highly
addictive. It also seems in both situations most of the time people don’t understand fully the risks they
are taking with either one. People are tricked and convinced that both are not as harmful just for
monetary gain.
Little, B. (2018, September 13). When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking. Retrieved
August 11, 2020, from https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154119)
Juliana Shahly
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/154119)
Tuesday
!
Hello Professor and class,
Both of these issues are similar because these situations involved physicians, which were part of the
problem. For instance, according to Gardner and Brandt (2006), ads were published in the media that
had pictures of physicians to promote smoking, especially Camel cigarettes. In regard to the opioid
crisis, Hirsh (2017) mentions that physicians were overprescribing opioids to people, which is why
opioid use was a big problem. For instance, physicians prescribe 30 to 60 pills to people instead of
prescribing a smaller amount of pills (Hirsh, 2017). People overuse opioids because they are left with
extra pills, which can easily lead to addiction if taken more than needed (Hirsh, 2017). Also, with all the
extra opioid pills out there, people could easily get access to them by stealing them (Hirsh, 2017).
“Comparative reasoning enables us to make interpretations, draw inferences, or offer explanations”
(Facione & Gittens, 2016, p. 242).
These situations are both different because physicians played different roles in these issues. For
example, physicians were overprescribing opioids, which was killing people in regard to opioid
In what way are the two situations comparable?
In what way are they different?
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 11 of 42
” Reply #
addiction (Hirsh, 2017). However, physicians were used in ads to promote cigarette smoking in the
other situation (Gardner and Brandt, 2006). Secondly, both of these situations were not in the same
time frame. For instance, physicians were used in ads to promote smoking in 1930-1953 whereas the
opioid situation is more recent. Now, physicians are not seen in smoking ads but opioid addiction is still
an issue.
I feel that the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry and the conduct of
doctors in the opioid crisis are both morally equivalent because smoking and opioid addiction are very
dangerous to a person’s health and could lead to severe health problems or even death. For example,
smoking could lead to lung problems, and overusing opioids may lead to overdosing.
References:
Facione, P. & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Thinking critically. 3 . Ed. Pearson:Boston, MA.
Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S.
cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222232.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
Hirsch, R. (2017). The opioid epidemic: Its time to place blame where it belongs. Missouri Medicine.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/)
Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking
and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis?
Explain your position and be very specific.
rd
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)
Caitlyn Pienkowski
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/102153)
Wednesday
!
Hi Juliana,
You pointed out a lot of great points in your post. For example when you mentioned that physicians
were over prescribing opioids which leads to extras for the person to take or for someone to
sell/steal. That was a great observation in the cause of how people are overdosing on opioids. I
agree with your statement on that the concept is morally equivalent. Great post!
-Caitlyn
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 12 of 42
” Reply # (1 like)
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/99157)
Wei Wen Chiang
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/99157)
Wednesday
!
Hello professor and class,
Reading about history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies blows my mind. All of us
know that tobacco is not healthy for our bodies. It is one for the risk factors listed in almost every
disorders. It is bad for almost all the body systems. I believe the doctors who was surveyed back in the
day was bribed with their answer choice. They were provided with complimentary cartons of Camels
after the survey (Gardner & Brandt, 2016). I believe thats the similar situation with opioid crisis. We all
know that opioid is easily addicted. Some pain control clinics receive millions of dollars from opioid pain
killer companies (Gale, 2016). It appears that doctors are following the money and choose to have
opioid pain killers because of the financial aspect of it.
I think the difference with two cases are not the doctors, but the patient and the smokers. Smokers
have a choice to decide if they want to smoke or not. It is not a medical emergency to smoke. The
smokers know the risk of smoking and decide to smoke. But the patients who take opioid pain killers
are prescribed by the doctors. When you are in pain and you have no choice by the opioid pain killers,
you will take it to relieve the pain.
I believe the doctors in relation to smoking is just equally bad with doctors in the opioid crisis
nowadays. I believe that the audience, either the smokers or the patients should research for the
consequence of consuming the tobacco or opioid. It is our responsibilities that to learn about the
substance and ask questions if we have one.
Facione, P. & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Thinking critically. 3 . Ed. Pearson:Boston, MA.
Gale A. H. (2016). Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid
Epidemic: When Will We Learn?. Missouri medicine, 113(4), 244246.
Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S.
cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222232.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
rd
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 13 of 42
” Reply #
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/97891)Sonja Sheffield (Instructor)
Wednesday
” Reply #
!
Ann, when you say believe the doctors were bribed, can you explain that a bit further? You said
what you believed but then you provided a statement from Gardner & Brandt; is that the
rationale for your thoughts?
Lets have some practice in identifying the kinds of similarities needed to support an argument
by analogy. As a note of similarity is important if noticing that two things are similar in a way that
gives you a reason to think that the things might be similar in some other way. For example:
adopting a dog and having a child. Adopting a dog is like having a child and that both require
taking responsibility for another living being. Also, they can both turn your home into a big mess!
Determine the following similarities or not, and explain your answer.
1. Being a student and having a job.
2. First-degree murder and euthanasia (physician-assisted death).
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682)
Ashley White
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/148682)
Wednesday
” Reply #
!
Hi Ann!
Great Post! I like how you described the difference between the two. It made me look at both
different. Your so right. Smokers can quit and aren’t getting anything out of smoking but causing
damage to themselves. Patients that take opiates, and are in actual pain, are patients trying to
relieve pain. I also agree with you that both situations were equally bad. Its really sad that peoples
health can easily be taken advantage of for monetary gain for others!
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 14 of 42
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/129972)
Brittany Varnes
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/129972)
Wednesday
” Reply #
!
Hi Professor and Class,
According to Gardner and Brandt (2006), the Americans had taken up cigarette smoking as a habit of
the elite men and women in society. Doctors had also adapted the habit and their images were hugely
used by cigarette manufacturers to endorse smoking as a safe habit. Gardner and Brandt (2006) also
note that manufacturers overlooked the health limitations that resulted from smoking and held that
smoking was safe since physicians also partook in the habit. In a different light, Hirsch (2017) places
the blame on the spread of the opioid pandemic on physicians who over-prescribe opioids to patients
to reduce pain.
Both articles are related in that they describe the provision of substances that negatively impact the
health outcomes of Americans. Cigarette manufacturers seek to optimize their output and maximize
profits by encouraging smoking. Hospitals also seek monetary gains by over-prescribing opioids. The
two articles are however different in terms of the roles that physicians play; they are actively engaged
in smoking which puts them at the direct risk of developing health problems. While they take part in
prescribing opioids in the second article, thus putting the lives of patients at risk. These articles present
a fallacy of relevance. They are both morally relevant in that healthcare providers play an integral role
in promoting substance abuse. Smokers and patients are manipulated into believing that cigarettes and
opioids are not harmful. The two incidences lead to a healthcare crisis in the United States.
References
Gardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). The doctors’ choice is America’s choice: the physician in U.S.
cigarette advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 222232.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066654
Hirsch, R. (2017, March). The opioid epidemic: Its time to place blame where it belongs. PubMed
Central (PMC). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140023/
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/147419)
Elijah Wiggin
8/15/20, 4:34 AM
Page 15 of 42
(https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/65138/users/147419)
Wednesday
” Reply #
!
These two situations have a similarity of both dealing with physicians. In the 1940s they used an
advertisement of, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” (Martha N. Gardner, 2006)
Then with the opioid epidemic of physicians prescribing to much of medicines in general, but especially
in opioids and antibiotics.
They are different because back in the 1930s and 1940s they were not aware of the health
complications that cigarettes can cause over a period of time. Their intentions were not to promote
cigarettes for people to get a type of cancer or get sick. The opioid epidemic is different. The physicians
do not over prescribe patients for them to abuse it. Physicians do not want their patients to be in pain.
“Prescribing 6 to 10 pills will undoubtedly result in a phone call from a pharmacist asking for a round
number of pills
