The importance of written scientific information (My View)

Looking back at last week's post, I realised that I was quite forceful in my opinion. I really wanted to get my point across. I wanted the world to know that I am dead set against allocating organs to only those already registered to donate, and why. But what makes my opinion matter? Who cares what I say anyway? To the scientific world, I'm a nobody.........................


According to Gopen & Swan (1990), the purpose of scientific writing is not to merely present information and thoughts or to convert data into sentences and paragraphs, but rather to actually communicate to an audience in a way that lets the majority of them perceive exactly what the author had in mind.


My blog is now under scrutiny by the whole world via the world wide web. That puts my thoughts and information out there, before a public audience. They now have access to my thinking and just like a planted seed that may grow into a tree, that planted information may grow and expand another individual's line of thought. I read scientific research and it broadens my thinking, therefore a seed is planted in that area and I may or may not change my view on that topic, depending on my perception of what was written. When I read an article in the newspaper or someone's opinion on social media on a specific topic, a different seed is planted. Again, I may or may not change my view on that topic, depending on how well the author discussed what was written.


In answer to my questions above; once information is made public, it becomes important because somewhere, somehow, someone is reading and taking note of what was said, true or false, relevant or irrelevant, it makes an impact. Hopefully, in my case, it will be a positive impact.


Gopen, G.D. & Swan, J.A. (1990). The Science of Scientific Writing.
               American Scientist 78(6). 550-558. Retrieved from:
               http://www.jstor.org/stable/29774235?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Summarizing the Debate

                            Summarising the debate 

For my position paper, I've opted to write on the debate as to whether only those already registered as organ donors should be eligible to receive a donated organ. As a registered organ donor myself, it might surprise you to know that I disagree with this statement. I'll explain why later in the blog.

Having researched the topic over the last few weeks, I've discovered that although many people feel really strongly about this topic, there is not much research published, that is available on the opinions of the donors and recipients themselves. I did, however, find a few relevant articles. 

An article in the Nelson Mail described the stance that one campaigner, Andy Tookey, was taking on the "Donors should take priority" campaign. Mr Tookey, stated that it was unfair giving an organ to someone not willing to donate their own organ. This stance is being backed by Bruce Buyers,a heart transplant recipient. After discovering that his own heart would only have lasted another 8 to12 weeks, Bruce, who had been on the transplant waiting list for five months, now has a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. He now supports the Human tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill despite not being a donor before his transplant. He says that he is now willing to donate (Stickley, 2007)

I'm a little puzzled by Mr Buyers supporting this Bill when he himself wasn't a registered organ donor, before receiving his transplant. I do understand though, how someone that is a registered donor, would feel having to wait for an essential lifesaving organ whilst people that were not registered received organs first. This would be especially distressing if the person awaiting the transplant had a limited timeframe.

On the other hand, another study looking into the Cadaveric Organ Donor Act (CODA) indicates that there is an issue of fairness when the decision of saving lives or causing deaths is faced. It states that  "there is an ethical problem of fairness in the allocation of organs" (Weir, 1994).

As healthcare workers, we treat patients under the code of "First do no harm". Our priority is to save lives regardless of age, gender, race, religion, criminal conviction or otherwise. Deciding who should or should not receive a life-saving organ is not upholding that code, in my professional opinion. After all, who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

References

 Stickley, M. (2007, March 3) Donors 'should take priority'.  Nelson Mail. Retrieved from 
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=3db47af6-d5fe-4a9a-8833-14b4745d5404%40sessionmgr103&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=NEM070316-MSHEART1-0003&db=anh

Weir R.F. (1994) The Issue of Fairness in the Allocation of Organs. Journal of Corporation Law 20(1), 91-109.

The literature

I'm fortunate in that I work in an area that has a library filled with literature that is relevant for my position paper. I even have a friend helping me out....see caption above:) 

I've sourced quite a few articles from both work and Massy university libraries and have spoken to work colleagues that are currently practicing in the field of organ retrieval, since I personally, have been out of it for about five years now. The problem I've found this week is that one can collect too much information resulting in information overload. This is a problem because I now have to filter through all that research to find the relevant material for my paper. This is both a waste of time and can become a little overwhelming. It also gets a bit boring after a while.

What I've learned from all this is to only retrieve what is absolutely necessary for my task to save on time and keep my interest up. There is some good information on some government websites too, so I might start there and work my way through the rest one page at a time.

Note to self....."keep it simple."

Introductions

Dear readers,

My name is Melanie and I am currently studying Psychology at Massey University via distance learning part-time. I work full-time in Theatre as a Senior Anaesthetic Technician while raising a family. As part of an assignment, I was forced to undertake the immense task of starting and sustaining a blog. I can quite honestly state that I had no idea what makes a blog and was relieved when my eldest daughter told me that it was quite simply writing a letter to the population of the internet. Luckily for me, all I have to do for my first blog is introduce myself, so here it goes:

As previously stated, I am a Psychology student. My interest in this subject peaked when, as part of the organ retrieval team, I noticed the high number of teen suicides among the patients that we were retrieving organs from. This both saddened and encouraged me to try to find a way to both understand and help these young people as I have teenage children myself. It is my hope that I can gain a Clinical Psychology degree and use it to help troubled young people.

Psychology will be a big change from my current practice as I currently only converse with patients for only 5-10 minutes prior to them being anaesthetized for surgery. It is my hope that taking a communication paper will broaden my current patient to practitioner communication skills as I will need to communicate with the patient, their families and other health professionals involved in their care.

I have been told that I am a good listener which I feel is important in communication. I especially feel as a psychologist that this is a worthwhile characteristic. I am able to converse easily with other adults, however, when dealing with youths, especially in a health setting, I find it difficult to break the ice. It would be beneficial if I could learn to relate better to young people that just don't want to communicate.

Kind regards,

Melanie.