Down Syndrome Diagnosis in LB1 - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 712 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/10/30 Category Medicine Essay Level High school Tags: Down Syndrome Essay Did you like this example? The origin of Homo Floresiensis has been a source of controversy and confusion for physical anthropologists since its discovery was made in 2003. Nicknamed the Hobbit for its small stature, the species has perplexed anthropologists because its features seem too primitive for the time it was living in. This has made it difficult for experts to place H. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Down Syndrome Diagnosis in LB1" essay for you Create order Floresiensis among our other hominin ancestors. Many theories explaining the species emergence and attributes have arisen, including one that blames down syndrome for the diminutive stature and primitive features of the hominins type specimen, LB1. The research article A Critical Evaluation of the Down Syndrome Diagnosis for LB1, Type Specimen of Homo floresiensis written by Karen L. Baab, Peter Brown , Dean Falk, Joan T. Richtsmeier, Charles F. Hildebolt, Kirk Smith, and William Jungers, explains the invalidity of a down syndrome diagnosis for the Homo Floresiensis type specimen, LB1. The articles main focus is eliminating the idea that down syndrome is the most likely cause of H. Floresiensis undersized characteristics. As the authors note, this claim had persisted among a number of anthropologists who believed the specimen was simply a small modern human that many have been pathologically altered. This includes Robert H. Eckhardt, an anthropologist that most recently wrote an article attempting to dismiss H. Floresiensis as a valid species by supporting a Down Syndrome diagnosis of LB1. Baab et al. utilizes several types of evidence to discount Eckhardts evaluation of this species, present key differences between LB1 and people with down syndrome, and identify the characteristics of H. Floresiensis that make it a unique species. Baab et al. attempt to refute the claim of a down syndrome diagnosis with several solid pieces of evidence. This evidence thoroughly highlights the multitude of significant incongruences between LB1 and modern humans with down syndrome. Some of the reasoning that the authors include is that much of a DS diagnosis involves soft tissue qualities, which the fossils found in Liang Bua did not have. The authors also state that, many of the clinical signs of DS are not unique to this syndrome but are present in other syndromes(Baab et al. 3). To support these general statements, Baab et al. also have a plethora of more specified evidence. This includes a table listing the hard tissue features common in those with down syndrome and comparing it to the features of LB1. To expand on that, the authors also feature diagrams comparing neurocranial shape, cranial templates that visually show the difference between LB1 and DS individual, and much more. To further discredit Robert H. Eckhardt and his research, they also included evidence that reject his specific claims. For example, Baab et al. notes that Eckhardt connected LB1 to down syndrome because the type specimen did not have a sphenoid or maxillary sinus. To refute this, the authors include high-resolution medical CT scans showing the presence of maxillary sinuses and suggesting sphenoid sinuses in LB1. Baab et al. concludes that a diagnosis of down syndrome for LB1 is extremely unlikely because evidence supporting this diagnosis is minimal at best. They believe that LB1 remains a unique species- Homo Floresiensis. I believe that this conclusion is both convincing and logically sound because of the thorough and extensive reasoning provided by the authors. One of their most convincing arguments is the fact that many of the most diagnostic features of down syndrome can simply not be observed in the hard tissue remains of LB1, such as a protruding tongue and single palmar crease. Another would be their acknowledgement that many of the characteristics belonging to modern humans with down syndrome are not unique to this syndrome, making a definitive diagnosis improbable. Although Baab et al. provided much more detailed reasoning than the aforementioned, I found these arguments the most convincing because they made a definitive diagnosis for LB1 seem simply illogical. In conclusion, I find the research conducted by Baab et al. and presented in A Critical Evaluation of the Down Syndrome Diagnosis for LB1, Type Specimen of Homo floresiensis to be valuable to the field of biological anthropology because it eliminates one reason for the existence of LB1. In my opinion, it is important for anthropologists to be able to determine that Homo Floresiensis is, in fact, a valid and unique species.

Flannery OConnors A Good Man Is Hard to Find and Raymond...

Flannery O’Connor and Raymond Carver wrote the short stories, â€Å"A Good Man is Hard to Find† and â€Å"The Cathedral,† which both showcase personas of conflictedness in two different time frames. Although one can draw many interpretations from these two stories, written in 1953 and 1983, respectively, one might refute many impracticalities associated with the nostalgic state of many of these characters, who possess characteristics that would be considered archaic and imbecilic. Racists and discriminatory viewpoints circumnavigate the minds of several characters, who can’t seem to come to terms with modern ideologues. The prevailing tendencies of these characters could very possibly cause some anguish to the readers, who would struggle to make†¦show more content†¦A car then stops, and three men come out with guns, one of which is believed to be the misfit. The misfit scares the grandmother and urges Bailey’s wife to make the children sit down. The grandmother can only think about herself, and selfishly asks the misfit if he’d ever kill and old lady. She starts to suck up to the misfit by claiming that he’s a good man and comes from good people. A â€Å"good man,† by her definition, is one whose values align with her own. He’s apparently good, because by her reasoning, he wouldn’t shoot a lady. The misfit begins to praise his parents and when she questions whether he prays, two gunshots cease the life of her husband and John Wesley. The grandmother doesn’t seem too concerned about the gunshots and urges the misfit to pray. Throughout the conversation, as the Misfit reflects on his life, he explains how he went to jail for killing his father. The grandmother wants him to pray, but the Misfit believes he’s fine without prayer. The misfit’s co-conspirators eventually kill off everyone except the grandmother. What the grandmother fails to realize, is that this whol e situation could’ve been avoided if she didn’t ignorantly point out the misfit originally. The misfit expresses his doubts of Jesus and he quickly becomes angry. The misfit claims that life has no pleasure, the grandmother reaches out to him and claims he’s one of her children. The misfit then shoots the

Environmental Impact of the Organization ANZ-Free-Samples for Students

Questions: 1.What major categories of indicators does ANZ report against? 2.How did the bank determine these indicators (i.e. which guidelines did they use?) 3.What does ANZ mean by responsible banking? Answers: 1.The GRI system has been chosen for assessing the environmental impact of the organizational operations of ANZ. This system is the standard reporting guideline including the Indicator Protocol Set. The PI (performance indicator) involves biodiversity, energy and emissions and several others environmental indictors (Boersma, 2015). The standards in GRI system followed by ANZ are created in accordance to the global labor practices and its impact on the environment as it conducts independent audit. This includes the guideline for safety, health and risk management systems of the stakeholders and the minority groups. 2.ANZ has utilized their Corporate Sustainability Framework and their specific approach for risk management and governance as a major guideline for determining their sustainability model guidelines. They also use the guideline of their management approach for discussing various approaches for their sustainability model. They also follow the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) for reviewing the sustainability reporting, as with the help of this, ANZ can conduct an entirely independent audit of the stakeholder and create a dialogue with the company management in any falsified reporting case (Moscardo et al., 2013). ANZ also engages the employees through survey for reviewing the major theme of their sustainable practices. 3.By responsible banking, ANZ commits to the management and control of the environmental impact by their organizational activities, therefore the organization ensures that they develop solutions for reducing the environmental costs and impacts. The organization considers meeting the requirements of the present without any kind of compromise in the capabilities of the future generations in meeting their requirements as a major goal of sustainable development (Weber Feltmate, 2016). The organization ensures that while contributing the financial development of the organization, they also help in resolving potential threats and risks to the sustainable social relation, economic and environment References Boersma, M. (2015). How Does Sustainable Banking Add Up?. Moscardo G., Lamberton G., Wells G., Fallon J., Lawn P., Rowe A., Humphrey J., Wiesner R., Pettitt B., Clifton D., Renouf M., Kershaw W. (2013). Sustainability in Australian Business: Principles and Practice. Milton, QLD: Wiley-Blackwell. Weber, O., Feltmate, B. (2016).Sustainable Banking: Managing the Social and Environmental Impact of Financial Institutions. University of Toronto Press.

Mills Utilitarianism Sacrifice The Innocent For The Common Good When

Mill's Utilitarianism: Sacrifice the innocent for the common good? When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. This lack of information is a problem both in evaluating the welfare issues and in evaluating the consequentialist issues which utilitarianism requires be weighed when making moral decisions. Utilitarianism attempts to solve both of these difficulties by appealing to experience; however, no method of reconciling an individual decision with the rules of experience is suggested, and no relative weights are assigned to the various considerations. In deciding whether or not to torture a terrorist who has planted a bomb in New York City, a utilitarian must evaluate both the overall welfare of the people involved or effected by the action taken, and the consequences of the action taken. To calculate the welfare of the people involved in or effected by an action, utilitarianism requires that all individuals be considered equally. Quantitative utilitarians would weigh the pleasure and pain which would be caused by the bomb exploding against the pleasure and pain that would be caused by torturing the terrorist. Then, the amounts would be summed and compared. The problem with this method is that it is impossible to know beforehand how much pain would be caused by the bomb exploding or how much pain would be caused by the torture. Utilitarianism offers no practical way to make the interpersonal comparison of utility necessary to compare the pains. In the case of the bomb exploding, it at least seems highly probable that a greater amount of pain would be caused, at least in the present, by the bomb exploding. This probability suffices for a quantitative utilitarian, but it does not account for the consequences, which create an entirely different problem, which will be discussed below. The probability also does not hold f or Mill's utilitarianism. Mill's Utilitarianism insists on qualitative utilitarianism, which requires that one consider not only the amount of pain or pleasure, but also the quality of such pain and pleasure. Mill suggests that to distinguish between different pains and pleasures we should ask people who have experienced both types which is more pleasurable or more painful. This solution does not work for the question of torture compared to death in an explosion. There is no one who has experienced both, therefore, there is no one who can be consulted. Even if we agree that the pain caused by the number of deaths in the explosion is greater than the pain of the terrorist being tortured, this assessment only accounts for the welfare half of the utilitarian's considerations. Furthermore, one has no way to measure how much more pain is caused by allowing the bomb to explode than by torturing the terrorist. After settling the issues surrounding the welfare, a utilitarian must also consi der the consequences of an action. In weighing the consequences, there are two important considerations. The first, which is especially important to objectivist Utilitarianism, is which people will be killed. The second is the precedent which will be set by the action. Unfortunately for the decision maker, the information necessary to make either of these calculations is unavailable. There is no way to determine which people will be killed and weigh whether their deaths would be good for society. Utilitarianism requires that one compare the good that the people would do for society with the harm they would do society if they were not killed. For example, if a young Adolf Hitler were in the building, it might do more good for society to allow the building to explode. Unfortunately for an individual attempting to use utilitarianism to make for decisions, there is no way to know beforehand what a person will do. Furthermore, without even knowing which building the bomb is in, there is no way to predict which people will surely be in the building. A subjectivist utilitarian would dismiss this consideration and would examine only what a rational person would consider to be the consequence; however, even the subjectivist utilitarian must face the question of precedent setting. Utilitarianism considers justice and humane treatment to be good for society as a