Search This Blog

Monday, September 5, 2011

Life of the Mind Book

            What I found stood out to me most in Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is the questionable legality of Henrietta’s cells being taken without her knowledge. As Skloot’s story unfolds, we find that there was no law yet forbidding this, excepting common decency. I was outraged at the injustice of the poverty of the Lackses while the scientific community flourished with He La, Henrietta’s unwillingly and unknowingly given donation to medical research. Had it not been for Skloot, I would never have known that many a breakthrough in oncology, the study of cancer and the practices relating to it, virology, the study of diseases, and the study of genes resulted in borderline theft of Henrietta’s cancerous cervical cells.
            Racism was prominent in the time of Henrietta Lacks, so it is little surprise that, at the time, nobody seemed to care about how the cells affected Henrietta’s family, or to be more concise, how they did not. Had the Lackses been white, I believe they would have been given more information, and would have been made to understand what was happening with Henrietta’s cells. They may have, though I doubt this very much, even been given compensation for the use of He La.
            In the end, Rebecca Skloot made sure that the injustice done towards Henrietta Lacks and her family did not go unnoticed with her biography of the woman and her cells, telling all that read it the story of how one woman, through death and disease, saved the lives of many, however unwittingly. Rebecca used a decade of her time to make sure this story was wholly inclusive, and in doing so, I believe she finally brought justice to the situation.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Rhetorical Analysis of an Advertisement.


     Here is something we have all seen before, an anti-smoking ad. They are everywhere: TV, radio, internet, billboards, you name it. They all have the same message as this one and that is, simply put, "smoking kills." The thing is, for the majority of people, it doesn't. You will always see an ad that says "1 in 4 smokers die." The vast majority of smokers live normal, healthy lives and never have to deal with lung cancer, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis.
    The problem that leads to ads like this is a simple one: smoking kills... sometimes. For some people, sometimes is enough to ban tobacco altogether. The people who created this ad just want people to stop smoking. Most people logically think, "smoking kills people, and I don't want to die, therefore I will not smoke." I even admit to be one of those people, but truthfully, I could in all likelihood start smoking without any adverse effects to my health.
     Since most smokers don't die from smoking-related causes, this ad and others like it have a weakened logical appeal, at least to smokers. The ethical and emotional appeals, I believe to be strong. People who create ads like this one are trying to prevent deaths, which says much about their collective character. And, of course, anything to do with death will stir up people's emotions.
     I believe this ad to be effective, though not completely logically sound. Ads like these aid in the prevention of smoking, and in the process of quitting.