Nazi Medical Experiments

During World War II many Nazi physicians experimented on prisoners in the concentration camps. These experiments were often painful and sometimes even deadly. This was extremely unethical but the Nazis simply did not care. Some experiments were aimed at the survival of the German troops. These experiments consisted of finding ways to cure hypothermia and make sea water drinkable for the troops. This, however, wasn't the only thing that they did. They experimented on curing illnesses and injuries that the troops might have. For example, malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, infectious hepatitis etc. Most prisoners fought against such experiments so they would be given phosgene or mustard gas to experiment on them. Some physicians would even introduce certain diseases to different races to see how they would withstand them. The main purpose of this was to "Jewish racial inferiority". The most chilling experiment was the development of an inexpensive way to whip out Jews, Roma, and any others that the Nazis deemed less superior.


United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Nazi Medical Experiments". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United                    States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10 June 2013. Web. 20 Feb 2014.
                 <http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005168>

 

Current Event #4

A pharmacy in Missouri that agreed to supply the state with the drugs for lethal injections have backed out of their agreement. A lawyer that is fighting against Taylor’s death penalty is now suing saying that, “the state [can] not guarantee the quality of the drugs [being] used and that the drugs could cause cruel and unusual punishment during the execution”(Clark). In a few cases of execution by lethal injection the inmate would feel an intense amount of pain. However, some people might think who cares, it’s just an inmate but it is against the law to give cruel and unusual punishment.

This article “Pharmacy agrees not to provide execution drugs” does not exactly align with the subjects in my classes right now. There is, however, one class that it could in some ways correspond with and that is First Aid. These drugs affect bodily functions by causing extreme burning sensation, suffocation, and skin discoloration.

I take the side of the lawyer fighting against the death penalty in this case. I believe that inmates should pay for what they have done. I do not believe that they should be killed in a painful way such as suffocating and having a burning sensation throughout the body for upwards of twenty minutes. In this article it says, “an Ohio inmate thrashed and gasped for air and took nearly 25 minutes to die after being given a new lethal drug cocktail that had never been used before”(Clark). This is no way for anybody to die including inmates. If the prisons painfully kill people then what makes them any better than the inmates. They should not mix lethal drugs when it comes to a human life.

I feel that the author of this article was more on the side of the cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't clearly state that the author is against the death penalty but one can infer this due to her only going into detail on the negative side. This impacts the article because one can only see one side of the argument not both sides. One thing that shows her side on this article is how she uses words like “extremely painful” to describe what the inmates have to go through when serving their death penalty.

                                                                   (CaCorrections)

CaCorrections. "Lethal Injection Room." Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. MediaWiki, 3 Aug. 2010.
            Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SQ_Lethal_Injection_Room.jpg>
Clark, Meredith. "Pharmacy agrees not to provide execution drugs.” MSNBC. NBC Universal,
18 Feb. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pharmacy-wont-provide-execution-drugs>

Gun Control Law

Summary: This article talks about a court in Connecticut upholding the assault weapon ban. This is considered a victory for gun safety advocates. Many people tried going against this ban saying it was going against the second amendment. The courts over ruled them by saying that it is perfectly just to do so. "The court [concluded] that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control”(Richinick).

Connection: As far as connecting this to an assignment in class it's not possible because we haven't done anything on this topic. This can however be connected to our lives. If assault weapons are banned than the amount of shooting may actually drop substantially.

Reaction: I'm in a way for it but then again against it. I'm for it because I think it will help cut down the number of shootings and I'm against it because I would like to have fun with some of those automatic weapons. This article benefits me by potentially reducing the number of shootings in the United States.

Short Answer: The author of this article helps support his clam by using statements such as, "the legislation was an emotional gesture following the December 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26 people including 20 first graders"(Richinick). This article also uses a series of quotes to better help your understanding of this topic. An example of this is when he says, "The common-sense measures we enacted last session will make our state safer, and I am grateful for the court’s seal of approval"(Richinick).

                                                                  (Richinick, Michelle)


Ty6742. "Wasr." Photograph. Wikimedia Commons. MediaWiki, 31 May 2007. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.
               <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wasr-10.jpg>
Richinick, Michelle. "Court Upholds Constitutionality." MSNBC. NBC Universal. 2013. Web.
               2 Feb. 2014. <http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/court-upholds-strict-gun-law>