Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death

In Margaret Lock’s book Twice Dead, she introduces us her mindset and ideas on organ transplants and the new reinvention of the term death. In these first few chapters, Lock focuses on the development of increasing organ transplants over the past few years with increased medical technology and advancement. It was “only during the past twenty years have medical knowledge and technology advanced sufficiently for organ transplantation to become routine, with surgeons performing thousands of operations each year” (Lock, 1). With the newly increase in organ transplants, the focus in these chapters come mostly from the bodies of individuals diagnosed as “brain dead” which lead them into being possible organ donors for these surgeries. The term “brain dead” has really redefined what death really means. New medical technology is now able to monitor individuals with graphs, charts, and be able to acknowledge whether or not a patient is having a normal heart rate, pressure, and the right amount of activity occurring in the brain. Within the past decade or so, medical institutions are now able to care for patients and extend their lifespan a while longer with machines that work to continue their bodily functions. Lock explains to us in these first few chapters how the term “brain death, “which to doctors and medical personnel, means that an individual’s brain is not functioning anymore and without it and the monitors that continue to help the rest of the body alive, the person is then considered “brain dead,” in which “pulling the cord” is therefore encouraged to avoid waste of time and money. Although there are family members that would never allow for their loved ones to be let go unless their body, itself, decides to entirely stop working, with the new term “brain death, “ patients whom are released open up the new world of available organs needed for organ transplants.


Increasing medical technological advances has created blurred boundaries with the new definition of death. Individuals now that have lost brain function but has continued heart functions can be deemed as dead. Death has no concrete boundary between the patient and the doctor. In relation to what we have been discussing since the beginning of this class, Cartesian Dualism, comes into play again, with how people in society today differentiates the importance of our bodies with our mind and soul with our new reinvention of the word death. With a newly reinvented meaning of death, brain death in terms put into the same category as well because “if there is no possibility for cognitive function in an individual because of irreversible damage to the upper brain, that that person can be pronounced as no longer have any “individual interest” (Lock, 8). In terms of putting a new meaning to death and associating it with “brain death, “ the organs of these donors now are seen more of a “cadaver like” quality. “This, in effect is what has happened to brain-dead organ donors in most of the countries routinely involved with organ donation: they are constituted as cadaverlike, their rights as members of society stripped from them” (Lock, 42). From new meaning in words it seems like it also brings along a new type of how much something is now worth in society. A new worth is put onto organs where, while in some countries they are valued greatly, others are put under the black market for distribution.


Unfortunately, many countries may have different views on organ transplant and with the new reinvention of the term death but Lock specifically focuses on two main countries in these chapters, Japan and the United States. Japan apparently even with new medical technology engraved in their society, they have different and opposing views of “brain death” and organ transplant. Lock states that cultures are widely used as the reason why certain values and beliefs come up from different countries, like that of Japans and the US, but “in Japan, culture is self consciously called on by some as a rhetorical device to assert a moral position against recognition of brain death” (Lock, 46), while in America, organ transplant can be widely accepted in terms of having the opportunity to give the “gift of life” to any other individual that is dying. But even with the moral value of giving the “gift of life by giving up your own organ or signing a release for your organs to be distributed once you are pronounce dead or brain dead, there are issues that arise with the comodification of these organs. “…for an organ to be of worth in this way, it must first be made into an object, a thing-in-itself, entirely differentiated from the individual from whom it was procured” (Lock, 48). Even in our society where confidentiality is secured with organ donors and recipients, sometimes these heroic acts come unrewarded and rarely memorialized. Some societies, like Japan, might have different values that prevent patients more from being released from life support once they are pronounce “brain dead” but other societies like our country for example, is so reliant on medical technology and advancement itself, where it even becomes part of our own culture and part of our own belief system. Organ transplant and the reinvention of the word death associated along with “brain death” may have a moral value to it but it could possibly mean something other than providing a person with the “gift of life” but avoiding the final stage of life, showing fear and bringing hopes that mankind could one day play God and be able to control when they are able to die.


Since the middle of the nineteenth century, there were many breathing machines and heart supporting machines that came about with new technological advanced. These new machines made it possible for individuals to live longer and avoid the so called “natural death.” Artificial ventilation is one main example of a new technological advancement, but even in that case. “The use of the ventilator eventually precipitated a reconsideration of the conventional medical understanding of death” (Lock, 58). This, in turn, put a newer great meaning to death. A meaning that goes beyond just watching some grow of old age, heart and lung failures, but more of a technological meaning where as “respiration, blood flow, and electrical activity of the heart were recognized as critical signs of life” (Lock, 70).


With the focus widely on organ transplant and the reinvention of the meanings death and “brain dead,” Lock brings upon important issues of having new advancement in medical technology within societies today. Although she does not put into blame of culture as changing the values and meaning of these issues, she focuses more on the meaning of death and the development of the new term “brain dead.” Apparently, the meanings could be misleading and misused by certain societies and redefining it could possible change our view and perspective on the meaning itself, but I believe it revolves specifically on culture itself and our fear of death. The fear that we must avoid as much as possible, to the point where we turn to advancements to improve and cover up what should have been viewed as a natural process of life.



Works Cited:

Lock, Margaret. 2002. Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 1-13, 32-53, 57-75.


Pictures Used:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/death/default.htm
http://docinthemachine.com/category/implants/
http://alabamaorgancenter.com/funeral.php
http://intensivecare.hsnet.nsw.gov.au/current/community/equipment/ventilators
http://hubpages.com/hub/Slow-Down-the-Aging-Process

Neuroenhancing Drugs

In the first portion of the reading, Margaret Talbot explains the increase use of certain psychological drugs in society today for enhancements in brain functions. Over these past years there has been an increase importance with these psychological drugs and have been ever so climbing in importance even more with such as competitive culture in the United States. People have become dependent to these drugs not only for psychological purposes but to increase their studying habits and learning habits of their children. Stimulants such as Aderrall and Provilgil have been substantially used more today to maintain focus and also eliminating an individual’s ability to sleep. Aderrall in this case, is prescribed to patients when they are diagnosed with ADHD by their psychiatrist while Provigil is used to enhance the release and production of dopamine in the brain. Certainly through studies and research these stimulants can prove to have an ability to allow better productivity and focus in someone but could these benefits balance out with the risks that are associated with the drug?
In the case of increase in production and availability of these drugs this has caused the usages of the drugs sky rocket over these past years. “The demand is certainly there, from an aging population that won’t put up with memory loss; from overwrought parents bent on giving their children every possible edge; from anxious employees in an efficiency obsessed Blackberry-quipped office culture, where work never really ends” (3). To no surprise, I can see how dependent more people are today with these drugs and stimulants in their daily tasks and live. College students become more reliant to these drugs as part of their daily studying habits in hopes of being able to balance out their school life with their social lives. Children are forced to intake psychological drugs because their parents are so worried of the way they are learning in school or socializing around children. But what about the risks and concerns that Talbot raises in the article? The risks of being reliant to the drug, the risks of over abusing the drug for daily use, the risks of increasing stigma in college settings where students take the drugs before exams and be considered as cheating, or the stigma in which types of populations these drugs will be more effective on when being used?
There is certainly an issue that is being raised now with the dependency of these drugs and how they could possibly counteract with the health risks of long term usages of whatever psychological drug used for “neuroenhancement” in the brain. In comparison the Talbot’s article, the movie we watched on the 13th of July, Selling Sickness, raised awareness with the increased deaths in young children that were associated with taking certain psychological drugs as part of their daily lives. The movie portrayed the use of Paxil for social anxiety disorders and explained some of the withdrawal symptoms including addiction, irritability, panic attacks at uncontrollable rates, and even electrical sensations. With some of the doctors that prescribed these drugs to the young children, there weren’t even any distinctions made with whether or not the children were actually suffering from social anxiety disorders or whether they were just born with a natural characteristic trait of shyness. These distinctions were ignored and usually doctors easily prescribed the drugs for the adults and young children, and in the end, produced negative withdrawal symptoms that sometimes went overboard.
What does this really say about the drug companies in society today? What does it say about medical physicians as well? There is a possibility, also explained in the film, that doctors and pharmaceuticals could be working together for profits in a capitalist society. Even with media, these drugs are portrayed in advertisements with such a positive image that clearly erases any of the possible negative withdrawal images and risks that come out from taking the drugs. Even with the college students in Talbot’s article, these students had the psychological drugs easily assessable with their friends and even in worst cases where they couldn’t have purchased the drugs from drug dealers in the college campuses, they were still easily obtained by physicians with just a few questions and diagnosis. Could we really take away the blame of addiction and misuse of these drugs from the affected populations and turn them to the people that are really in control with the drugs, the pharmaceutical companies, media, and medical institutions?
Carl Elliot explains in this first chapter that enhancement technologies are being used for “self-improvement” (Elliot, 16).With self-improvement in mind, could an individual choosing to opt for cosmetic surgery or taking antidepressants be focusing on self-improvement on themselves rather than changing their entire identity? What has society placed onto individuals where we are challenged and faced with such a face paced, high achieving, over productive place where people resort to neuroenhancing drugs or other enhancement technologies to make them feel better? How are we supposed to reduce the dependency on these types of drugs or enhancement technologies when society itself works around and is so dependent on the pharmaceutical market for self-improvement?
With this issue on the dependency of drugs raised on both articles and even on the film, there really needs to be awareness with the effects of these drugs on the populations that are taking it. With a range of effects many of us are unable to control; the media and pharmaceuticals need to step up to clearly explain these effects so people know what they are putting into their bodies. Doctors and physicians as well need to make clear distinctions with their patients to whether or not they are suffering from psychological disorders or have natural characteristic traits that differentiate them from what’s normal in society. People are becoming more and more dependent on these psychological drugs today, profits made from pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions are one of the highest in society and in our country. Are these profits made from misunderstanding made within populations and the companies themselves? Are these drugs really beneficial in the long run for the health of the human body?

Works Cited:

Carl Elliott, Introduction and the Perfect Voice, IN Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003. Pp. XV-XXI, 1-27.

Margaret Talbot, “Brain Gain: The Underground World of ‘Neuroenhancing’ Drugs.” The New Yorker, April 27, 2009

Discovery of the Sexes

In Chapter 5, Thomas Laqueur discusses the emergence of the two-sex model in the early 19^thcentury. Although in the previous chapter he states that through science, society has always followed the one-sex model, the distinctions have very much changed in time and because of this the new term, gender, was created to gear thoughts and beliefs away from the old one-sex model. Laqueur explains in this chapter that with the newly distinguished model of two different genders, this still allowed stigma and power differences between the two. The foundation of gender showed to downgrade the status and roles of women and put men as the key players in the sexual organs they had compared to organs of the female and often placed upon stigma and beliefs that weren’t actually true. With this newly model emerged from the one-sex model, scientists have shown to the public eye that maybe they did care to find and enforce the two different types of gender, but still through their research and findings they continued to place upon gender roles between males and females, which often came out with a negative effect to women in society. Gender at this point linked biology to social behavior that produces a structural society.

This new development of the two genders allowed to power and position to take place between the two roles. In addition to that, from the new models, politics came into play with the issues that came into effect with social, economical, political, cultural, and erotic contexts. “The politics of gender very clearly affected not only the interpretation of clinical and laboratory data but also its producton” (Laqueur, 153). With new knowledge scientist and researchers were able to prove with evidence that they were correct. This, however, came into affect with the knowledge produced in the anatomy of the male and female body, with the nature of ovulation, production of sperm, conception, and menstruation. In reality these, “two incommensurable sexes were, and are, as much the products of culture as was , and is, the one-sex model” (Laqueur, 153). Although the understanding of reproduction biology progressed, this however, did not prove to be main causal factor that the so called one-sex model was still put into play. With evidence in pictures that were just merely altered when scientist stated that there was actually a difference between these two genders, the one-sex model was still being followed from the one during the ancient times. Women were also still being downgraded in society with actions and beliefs created.

A few points raised in this chapter concerned the female and male gender roles not only with the type of sexual organs they had but with the type of empowerment placed in men and women. One major point Laqueur raised in this chapter was the issue during the late 18^th, early 19^th century that women were not able to conceive without achieving orgasm. Although scientists were not able to prove that this was actually true, especially considering the fact that orgasm could not be determined as to when it would actually take place during intercourse, this belief of orgasm necessary in reproduction became subjective for men to use against women. This completely took the power away from women not only with labeling in anatomy, but also with the experiences women had during sexual intercourse. Along with that, conception was therefore not proven when women were conceived after they had the experience of rape. “This “disempowerment of women rape victims to contest against their perpetrator if they had conceived and "only the most egregious and repugnant rapes ever came to trial" (Laqueur, 162). It was not until 1823 a doctor proved that the arguments of pregnancy was necessary that there was consent needed was in fact, not true at all. “Sexual difference no more followed from anatomy after the scientific revolution that it did in the world of one sex” *163).

In class from the presentations and film showed on this reading, we discussed the issues raised with why these stigmas could have risen from. From my thoughts, cultural concerns came into play with these differences. The biological context produced from scientists and researchers from the start, developing into a two-sex model was greatly affected because of the cultural and religious concerns of the two different gender groups. The rise of the two-sex model was contradictory to the fact that woman were not seen as leading roles in society. With reasoning from whether they were able to conceive with orgasm or not in sexual intercourse, and clear distinctions in pictures that the sex model did not completely change after all, women were still continued to be downgraded in society. Although scientists and researchers were probably seen with higher power in society and were not even close to being questioned of their research, with the types of pictures, anatomy of organs in men and women, and reasoning of the differences between the two.

This issue raised in the article of The Discovery of the Sexes raised major points between gender roles between men and women from the 19^th century till today. To no surprise, even among different cultures women are downgraded with the roles they have in family households an also among the society. Could culture really be another reason why these roles are placed in society today? Or could our society today still be following the one-sex model in a sense because men and women are still highly differentiated because of power and position among the general public? With newly portrayed sex models of both men and women, could this actually prove that the equilibrium is in place rather than having one gender higher than the other

The science of gender is an issue because we come to believe that scientists and medical doctors are always right and that we should never question their authority or power.

Works Cited:

Thomas Laqueur, Discovery of the Sexes, IN Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Pp. 149-192.

Images Used:

http://student.britannica.com/comptons/art-54226/Human-male-and-female-reproductive-systems-have-the-same-structural

http://discoverwriting.ning.com/

Neurochemical Selves

In the chapter on neurochemical selves, Nikolas Rose discusses how the advancement and development of biomedicine and bio technology since the early twentieth century has affected our daily lives with our life decisions and the amount of time spent on our concerns of medical health. The effect of increased research and medical technology has geared us away from focusing on our biological selves and reasoning to a more neurochemical and psychological reasoning. Rose discusses how the exploration to find truth with certain behavioral activities were linked with biomedical research and allowed us to supposively find reasons and create cures for them. With technology, scientists and researchers were able to tell medical patients answers they thought to be the cause of their psychological and behavioral illnesses with proof from their brain scans, graphs, and x-rays. It was generally distinguished the differences of what was considered as normal activity, what was not, and figure ways through medical treatment and pharmaceuticals in which the patients can follow to return back to the normal behaviors in society.

The rise of psychological reasoning and research led to many concerns and contradictions with what doctors, scientists, and researchers wanted to correct and treat their patients back into what they considered part of the norms and regulations to a social order to the general public. “Psychiatrists often found that their own diagnosis of madness were unable to meet legal criteria of evidence and proof. It arose in cultural disputes, where critics argued that psychiatric diagnosis merely medicalized deviance and upheld the norms of patriarchal social order” (Rose, 194). How were these doctors and scientists able to prove and put upon to society what was normal and what was not? Although, I don’t want to criticize the amount of effort and time put into their research and development for cures but what really gives them the right to draw a line in the norms and correct behaviors that patients needed to follow?

Rose follows through in this chapter with a reason to why we may have come to believe that certain behavioral and psychological changes in our mind was able to be fix through the eyes of scientific research and treatment. The differences between the mind and the body was finally linked with the help of medical advancement and technology and because of this medical doctors and scientists were able to get their patients to believe and follow their diagnosis and treatment needed to regulate the functions in the body. “When mind seems visible with the brain, the space between person and organs flatten out-mind is what brain does” (Rose, 198). The linkages and connections with the mind and brain was considered an undiscoverable problem in the past, so with the type of advancement scientists can use now, they can provide evidence to what can be done to fix what they saw as a problem to the human body. The beliefs of scientists and doctors with the higher power is clearly not questionable, especially since they have the higher education and experience to make these statements and create a line for what was considered normal, and to follow up with their statements they even provided to the public evidence and proof that they were in fact right after all.

In yesterday’s presentations and also in the next few parts of the chapter, the issue of the rise of pharmaceuticals was raised and with this, there proved and showed another type of reasoning put upon in society for patients to follow. “Many earlier criticisms of the use of psychiatric drugs claimed that they were used as “chemical coshes” in control strategies seeking to pacify and normalize. But today I suggest, such drugs do not so much seek to normalize a deviant but to correct abnormalities to adjust the individual and restore and maintain his or her capacity to enter the circuits of everyday life” (209). The focus on correcting and regulated the body was geared more towards the individual body rather than the human body as a group. This focus could have been helpful to prove a more individualized diagnosis a patient might have preferred more, but it lacks the focus on illness and sickness in the general public health. The need to focus on society as the main picture was necessary to fix such great deals of diagnosis, but pharmaceuticals in this case led the patients to believe and feel that their individual body needed individual medications to fix what their individual mind had problems with.

Similar to what I have just discussed, in the short film, “More” by Mark Osbourne, the images depicted made me aware and think of how it was so much linked to the reading by Rose and topics raised in class yesterday. In the movie, the main character never seemed happy with what he or she was living with, the immense time spent on labor, being criticized by his or her boss every day, and especially the need to find something new he or she could rely on to make themselves happy. Thus, this person was able to create a new invention that showed to increase happiness in the person; the product became a huge hit, changing the role of the blue collar worker into the big boss of the industrial company. In the end all the success and fame, there seemed to be something that the person was missing and I came to think of this as the need to find what their inner self needed and have given up to create and continue to follow along with the new product. In relation to this film and what we have been discussing in class yesterday, with the rise of pharmaceuticals and medical advancement, we come to believe, with the help of what scientists and researchers say, that our problems can be fixed with this new advancement, but the real issue is that, although these new products may have a temporary result to our body, it does not fix anything. These products were generally created for profit and for the general public to believe and follow what higher power thought of as the norm and social order of our society today.

Works Cited:

Osbourne, Mark. “More” 1998.

Rose, Nikolas. Neurochemical Selves, In the Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2007. Pp. 187-223.

Pictures Used In Order:

http://www.pharmacongress.com/past7/

http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/addiction/

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastlife/story.html?id=bb99fb0a-0354-4e84-a47f-92db59cfc439

Appetites: Food and Sex in Postsocialist China

Judith Farquhar explains in Chapter 1 in her book Appetites the importance of Chinese pharmacy and explores the practices and basics of Chinese medicine. In relation to Chen’s chapter on Food, Medicine, and Quest for Good Health there is also an emphasis on the medicinal values of foods and nutritional therapies since ancient China. Although certain types of food and medicines were so readily available in the past than it was today, as a result of increased rural truck farming industries, better transportation, and better information distributed in concerns of the new agricultural techniques, many more products are more readily available today therefore, giving the population a better opportunity to have access and eat these food products. With readily available foods at local markets and restaurants the population of Chinese can have a closer sense to increasing their physical well-being. With the belief that meals must be balanced through the practices between the yin and the yang, “it suggests a body in motion, the activity of which can be influenced, and thus regulated by similarly classified efficacies of substances taken by mouth (Farquhar, 52). With a more balanced meal and nutritional intake, the body can therefore, in the eyes of this belief, be sustained and death can be prevented. Foods with a higher medicinal value can be considered to fulfill particular jobs meeting the daily necessities of the body.

In the connection of food with medicinal values, “eating is generally also a more social activity than medicine taking: people eat together, and Chinese food is famously organized for groups” (Farquhar, 53). The importance of food has been seen to form linking networks within family members. Farquhar shows the importance of this type of social networking in medicinal foods with the story of her friend that once found out of her diagnosis of throat cancer, chose to eat bottled white asparagus everyday for six months. Because of this, miraculously she was able to be cured from it. With the help from her friends and family is support and providing her with help from purchasing such an expensive type of food, she was able to avoid taking medications or go through chemotherapy to get rid of her throat cancer within just a few months. Social networking was also seen a type of healing therapy that the Chinese used in addition to certain types of food and medicine.

Moreover, another important aspect Farquhar explains in this chapter would be the linkages of Chinese medicine to a holistic well-being. “Moreover, Chinese medicine is said to be “holistic”-it links manifestations of illness to causal narratives not with reference to an underlying anatomical field but in relation to temporal emergence” (Farquhar, 64). The five elements of flavors, pungent, sweet, sour, bitter, and salty is believed to have positive outcomes with helping the health of the body in moving blood, nourishment, draining impurities, and causing urine to flow more regularly. Certain types of food are recommended for distinct illnesses and diseases that a patient is currently experiencing.

Another point Farquahar discusses in this chapter is the need for a more understanding with how the patients and doctors work together. There is a distinction between the differences of the types of care delivered between doctors of traditional medicine and modernized medicine. Most traditional doctors deliver little primary care and operate outside most public health systems in the general population. If the complaints of these patients are met because of the lack of medication and treatment presented to them, they are often seen going away and choosing to consult with a doctor of more modernized care. This type of care the doctor provides, in contrast, will most likely use” blood, urine chemistries, x-rays, and sonograms as part of his or her Chinese medical practice, and even if all these tests come out “negative,” the patient is still deemed to be ill..”(Farquhar, 70).

As discussed in class this Friday, there was a concern between the relationships of doctors and patients and how there was a lack of communication sometimes and from this, there is a lack of treatment and care needed to fulfill what the patients really need. This lack of communication can also be linked among the differences between a traditional type of care and a more modernized type of care. In the perspective of traditional care, doctors are more closely associated with the patients, and from my experience they often follow up personally with patients and how they are feeling after treatment. In contrast, in the perspective of more modernized care, the relationship between the doctor and the patient can really be distant because of the people that work and help in between the doctor and the patients. From the nurses, pharmacists, and lab researchers that usually come in between the relationships of the two, patients can often feel less connected and understand a little less of what the doctor recommends for diagnosis and treatment for the patient themselves.

In the book Appetite written by Judith Farquhar, she explains the linkages with food as a medicinal value on the holistic well-being of an individual. With the help of readily available food products in the market now, people are generally able to access them better to meet their nutritional needs. In addition to that, there is a social perspective that is explained with Farquhar, in reasoning with how the support of family and friends can improve the physical well-being or an individual as well. A major issue that has risen up today in modern society with be the lack of communication between the doctor and the patient. Although in Chinese traditional medicine, they continue to focus in providing the nutritional and medical needs of the patients, with modernized medicine nowadays, with advanced technologies and specialties there is an increasing lack of understanding and communication between the two. These differences are crucial in better understanding and providing the patient with the best alternative with any type of illness or disease they are currently facing. Although traditional medicine has been used for millions of years, with the rise of modernized medical care, there needs to be a change with the system today, to increase understanding and communication within the doctor and the patient.

Works Cited:
Farquhar, Judith, 2002. Medicinal Meals. IN Appetites: Food and Sex in Post-Socialist China. Durham: Duke University Press. Pp. 47-77.

http://otbiking.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/its-like-a-concrete-jungle-out-there/

medscape.com