Recent orders
Parental Snooping
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Parental Snooping
Social media and digital technology have taken over the world of teenagers today. We live in a world where Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and the internet are the in thing. Anyone can access any information they want on the internet. This has brought a myriad of problems to parenthood. Many parents are baffled by the question of how far is too far when it comes to protecting your child privacy. Where do we draw the line between ensuring that our kids are safe and not crossing the line and invading their privacy?
To start with, parents should understand that there is a direct relationship between the amount of privacy that a child is allowed to have and how consistent, honest and responsible the child is. In order to understand how much privacy should be accorded to any child, parents need to grasp a clear understanding of how kids develop and how much privacy should be accorded at each particular stage of development.
When a child is young, there is a close bond between the child and the parent or the caregiver. Parents will feel the need to be close to their children and vice versa. They will want to cuddle and embrace each other for a better part of the day. Psychology describes this as ‘attachment parenting (Hawk, pg. 443-458). As the child grows and develops, a healthy and natural separation begins to occur. The child will become more sensitive to privacy issues. You will find that a child will start to close the bathroom door and will become embarrassed if someone comes in. The child will now prefer to spend more time with their peers playing and socialising. The line of separation becomes clearer and bolder when the child gets to adolescent.
During adolescents, the kid will feel the need to be recognised as an individual. At this stage kids want to be independent. At this point in life many parents will start to fight with their kids over the issue of independence and privacy. Parents need to know that it is necessary to accord the child the prerequisite amount of privacy but within set boundaries. Allow the kid to have their own room and to close the door when they want. This will allow the kid to have some alone time and learn to do things independently.
The term ‘spying’ comes in when a parent starts to go through the kid’s stuff. You will find some parents going through their kid’s phone, drawer, diary, closet and the backpack. The word spying is used here to denote a term that the modern day parent understands otherwise it has a negative connotation.
When it comes to the issue of protection and privacy, parents need to understand the personality of the kid they are dealing with. If you are dealing with a teenager who is obedient, respectful towards you and other people then accord that child the kind of respect that they deserve but within set boundaries since you are the parent and you don’t want to abandon your primary role of a parent. Caution should be taken since some teenagers are good at faking. They can pretend to be all good but in the real sense they are engaging in fishy business.
The game changes when you know you are dealing with an irresponsible and disobedient child. This is the kind of teenager who does not give you the respect you deserve. If you discover that your child is engaging in suspicious activities or you find anything incriminating against your child then you need to take the necessary action (Kerr, pg. 39-64). At this point, many parents find themselves in a dilemma. Parents often wonder how far is too far when it comes to the child’s right. The term ‘right’ has been overrated in this modern world. I believe that as long as the child is under your roof and you are paying the bills then you need to do your parental duties without hesitation. Instead of referring to the child’s right, it is better to talk about accountability and responsibility (Youn, pg. 362-388). If you have any suspicion as to whether your child is taking drugs or engaging in any risky behaviour, put the term privacy aside and go through anything and everything connected to that child.
Parents need to take the issue of privacy seriously. It is always good to monitor what the kid is doing but at the same time allow them some level of privacy. The required dose of privacy will help them gain independence and develop their characters and personalities as individuals. Parents are encouraged to actively monitor the activities of their child when using computers, phones, emails and messaging apps. Many children have fallen victims of cyber-bullying and other threats because of lack of guidance and online protection from their parents.
Communication is an important key in parenthood. Parents need to constantly communicate with their kids and spend adequate time with them. This will enable them develop a close relationship with their kids and they will get to learn of their behaviour. In case a child develops any queer behaviour then the parent will be able to pick it up and know how to deal with it. Every child has a right to privacy but it should be accorded within set boundaries that gives the child 100% protection and at the same time allows them to develop independence and their personal characters.
Work Cited
Hawk, Skyler T., Andrik Becht, and Susan Branje. ““Snooping” as a Distinct Parental Monitoring Strategy: Comparisons With Overt Solicitation and Control.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 26.3 (2016): 443-458.
Kerr, Margaret, Håkan Stattin, and William J. Burk. “A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 20.1 (2010): 39-64.
Youn, Seounmi. “Parental influence and teens’ attitude toward online privacy protection.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 42.3 (2008): 362-388.
Organ Donation
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Organ Donation
The sale of human organs is illegal across the world. There are many diseases that can be treated or even cured with organ transplants, but these donors need to be donated by willing donors. It is illegal to solicit organ donation using financial incentives for many reasons. There is a high demand for organs to be donated, but disproportionately fewer available donors. For example, in the United States, there are roughly 113 400 organs needed every day, but only 3,300 available donations. This situation creates a higher demand than supply, which promotes a market for organ sales. Many people who donate these organs are poor people, which means that financial incentives would encourage them to donate organs. To regulate the organ donation process, governments across the world have set up policies and laws on how donations are done. For example, most donors remain anonymous to avoid compensation. Parties such as transplant organizations match donors to recipients through an anonymous process. In other cases where donors find matches on their own, there must be proof that there are no incentives given to the donor. The sale of human organs should be illegal because it promotes human trafficking, black markets for organs, and it is also unethical.
Because of the high demand for human organs, legalizing the sale of the organs would encourage human trafficking. Many people who need organ transplants in developed countries travel to developing countries where the implementation of laws against organ sales is more relaxed. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 10000 kidneys are traded illegally from trafficked individuals every year (Caulfield et al 28). The main victims of human trafficking are poor and vulnerable populations that cannot protect themselves from traffickers. Although these numbers may seem few, examining them relative to wait times for organs gives a clearer picture. For example, waiting for a kidney in Canada can take any time between 4 to seven years. Waiting time in the United States averages 3.6 years. This dire situation encourages trafficking of organ donors from developing countries so that their organs can be harvested forcefully. The sale of human organs should be illegal because it puts vulnerable populations at risk of trafficking. Traffickers use various tactics to lure victims such as promises of employment and financial rewards.
The second reason why the sale of human organs should not be legal is that it encourages the creation of a black market for organs. Under laws that prohibit the sale of human organs, recipients have to rely on national transplant lists run by government organizations. If the sale of human organs were to be legalized, a black market for the organs would be created to meet the high demand for organs. Dealers in such organs would find organs through unscrupulous means, and they would find many desperate buyers. In such a market, organs would go to the highest bidder. According to Global Financial Integrity, the black market for human organs generates revenues of up to $1.7 billion annually, but the figures are likely to be much higher (Scheper 117). Faced with the prospect of high returns, organ dealers will have even more incentives to procure organs illegally. Legalizing the sale of human organs would allow these dealers to procure organs and sell them for very high prices.
Crime rates and exploitation of vulnerable people is another reason why the sale of human organs should not be legal. Kidnappings and murders would increase exponentially with the legalization of the sale of human organs. Some organs such as the heart and lungs are in high demand but can only be donated by recently deceased individuals. For this reason, it is challenging to find donors for these organs, and legalizing their sale would encourage illegal harvesting (Cohen 37). It is impossible to harvest a human heart without killing the owner, and such harvest would lead to many murders. Additionally, many vulnerable people would fall victim to forced abductions so that their organs can be harvested. Most donors come from poor and vulnerable backgrounds, and legalizing the sale of human organs would affect such populations disproportionately. Legalizing the sale of organs would offer financial incentives to poor people who need money for various reasons. Corrupt brokers, hospitals and physicians would take advantage of such people and exploit them. These corrupt parties pocket huge profits from the sale of organs while the donors are left with little money. Most of these donors are also gullible and illiterate; thus, they are more susceptible to deception. Those who do not understand the laws and donor contracts can easily be taken advantage of. Legalizing the sale of human organs thus paves the way for exploitation of vulnerable populations, and such situations should be avoided at all costs.
Selling human organs is unethical as it promotes the commercialization of vital organs. Renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant opposed the commercialization of human organs, explaining that people should always act in a manner to promote human dignity. Various ethicists and philosophers convened at a meeting organized by Harvard University to examine the ethics of selling human organs. The main ethical objection brought forward by philosopher Samuel Kerstein is that legalizing the sale of human organs robs donors, especially poor ones of their human dignity (Caulfield 42). This step labels human donors as tools that can be exploited at the right price and denies the inherent worth of a human being. No amount of money can be measured in value to a human organ; thus, the sale of such organs is unethical. Another reason why the sale of human organs should not be permitted ethically is that it inflicts physical and psychological harm on donors. For example, if a person is kidnapped and forced to donate their organs, the whole process could bring serious psychological damage to the person. Additionally, some donors may suffer physical damage as a result of their donations, such as infections from surgery. In case of future health problems, organ donations may prove detrimental to donors. An example of this is a person who donates a kidney, then later suffers from problems in their remaining kidneys.
Those in support of legalizing the sale of human organs argue that it would save many lives. Many people in dire need or organs die every day because they cannot access the organs that they need. In many countries like the United States, donors have to opt in for organ donation, which is a deterrent for many. Donors also have to prove that they do not receive any compensation for the organs they donate. The process of becoming an organ donor may be daunting for potential donors, and they end up not donating at all at the cost of thousands of lives each year. Legalizing the sale of human organs would be a great incentive for many donors as they would see that the process also benefits them (Calandrillo 69). People should be allowed to sell their organs legally because every person owns their body, and they can do whatever they want with their organs. If a person can safely donate their organs and live without them, then they might as well benefit from such a sale.
Another reason why the sale of human organs should be legal is that some other products of the human body such as semen, sperm and eggs are already legal; therefore there should be no discrimination on what a person can and cannot sell. An article appearing on CNN’s website explores the issue of financial compensation for bone marrow tissue. At the end of 2011, a US court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made it legal for donors to receive payments for their bone marrow tissue, for 3,000 USD (Parker 1). Plaintiffs in the case argued that such financial incentives would increase the supply of life-saving tissue and save the lives of many patients who die needlessly each year. However, this ruling came with some provisions attached. For example, the bone marrow tissue must be extracted through a process called peripheral apheresis, where doctors harvest tissue from the blood rather than from the bone itself. This provision allows for the bone marrow tissue to be treated as fluid, which is legal to sell. This ruling shows that the country should take a similar path when it comes to other organs so that many more lives can be saved.
After examining both sides of the argument, it is clear that the sale of human organs should remain illegal. Legalizing such sales brings many problems and ethical concerns which mostly affect vulnerable donors. Governments should take charge of the organ donation process to maintain human dignity and promote transparency. Government regulation also keeps patients safe because all organs are screened and certified as safe for donation. Donor rights should also be protected as some unscrupulous parties can take advantage of vulnerable donors for their own benefit. Although financial incentives could increase the supply of valuable organs, the potential risks are far greater than the benefits and therefore, it should remain illegal. People should be encouraged to donate organs out of altruism rather than any financial benefits.
Works Cited
Calandrillo, Steve P. “Cash for Kidneys-Utilizing Incentives to End America’s Organ Shortage.” Geo. Mason L. Rev. 13 (2004): 69.
Caulfield, Timothy, et al. “Trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal and the ethical and legal obligations of healthcare providers.” Transplantation direct 2.2 (2016).
Cohen, I. Glenn. “Can the government ban organ sale? Recent court challenges and the future of US law on selling human organs and other tissue.” American Journal of Transplantation 12.8 (2012): 1983-1987.
Park, Alice. “Should people be allowed to sell their organs?” CNN. 28 August 2012. https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/health/allowed-sell-organs-time/index.htmlScheper-Hughes, Nancy. “Illegal organ trade: Global justice and the traffic in human organs.” Living donor organ transplants (2008): 106-21.
Online Learning
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Online Learning
With the coronavirus pandemic spreading around the country, the majority of schools have shifted to online learning as a safety measure for both students and teachers. Everyone has been advised to stay home to avoid catching the highly contagious virus. Although many schools around the country have reopened for in-person learning, online classes have become the first choice for most others. The shift from in-person to online learning is both exciting and challenging. Students and teachers can stay safe at home while still catching up on their learning and teaching, but this requires many adjustments. For students, online learning, if not taken seriously, can turn into a web-surfing session where the student does what they want and ignores other requirements. Given the current situation, Ellen Laird’s article titled ‘I’m Your Teacher, Not Your Internet-Service Provider’ in the Chronicle of Higher Education website couldn’t be more relevant. In the article, Laird argues that students treat their online classes as the rest of the internet, expecting absolute freedom to do what they want and immediate responses to their needs.
Laird’s article summarizes some of the critical differences between in-person and online learning. One of these is the non-verbal cues that students and teachers both benefit from during in-person learning in the classroom. Laird says that in class, students can read her bearing; therefore, she does not need to share a lot of personal information. In the online courses, however, students cannot see their teacher face-to-face. Therefore, the instructor has to give detailed information about their availability or lack thereof. Laird also explains that online classes’ diversity can be challenging because students come from different backgrounds and situations, all of which affect their learning process and ability. Additionally, Laird is concerned about the students disregard for deadlines and consideration of reading materials with online learning. With in-person learning, students take things more seriously and will often dedicate enough time to their work, offering explanations for any missteps and challenges. The article is an honest review and analysis of students’ attitudes to online learning compared to in-person learning.
As an online student, I agree with Laird’s points. Taking classes online reduces the sense of urgency and seriousness of the class. For example, students do not have to get up early and show up for their classes. Physical class presence helps students take their work more seriously. Taking an online class also reduces the urgency to complete and submit assignments. Hearing a teacher remind me in person to present my work or inquire about my progress in class is motivation to do all my work in time or explain why I cannot. Laird also points out that online class forums lose their professionalism, and this is because students begin to treat them as a social platform rather than an academic one. Because students spend a lot of time interacting on social media, they forget that online class forums are not just any other webpage. Students tend to become overfamiliar with both each other and their instructor, which takes away from the seriousness of the class.
Laird’s argument that students treat their online class differently from a brick-and-mortar classroom is accurate with regard to deadlines. Laird writes, “Students in my traditional classes certainly miss deadlines. But they generally regard deadlines as real…..Not so with my online students.” (Laird 1) The main reason for this disregard for deadlines is the lack of urgency and seriousness within online classes that students expect to see in in-person learning. Pearl Jacobs carried out a study into the various challenges that come with online learning, and the findings support Laird’s arguments. Jacobs points out that interaction is essential for success in learning (Jacobs 3). Online classes do not have the same interaction level that would allow instructors to remind students of deadlines as in-person classes would. The minimal interaction in online classes creates a sense of laxity, which makes students disregard deadlines.
Students treat online and in-person classes differently with regard to their expectations of feedback. They expect their online instructors to respond to their questions and concerns immediately, just like a Google search would. However, the reality is that instructors need more time to respond to their students. Laird explains, “The speed of Internet transmission seduces them into seeking and expecting speed as an element of the course.” (Laird 1) These expectations from students are normal, given the quick results they are used to from the internet. Whenever one types in a query into their search engine, they get millions of results within seconds. They expect the same from their tutors, which is obviously impossible. Laird writes, “It takes me a long time to respond thoughtfully to students’ work, particularly their writing.” (Laird 1) With in-person learning, students would expect faster feedback. For example, students can ask questions during class time, which can be answered immediately, unlike online learning, where the instructor could find a large number of questions and concerns, which takes time to sort through.
Laird also explains that unlike in-person classes where students remain mostly formal, online classes tend to take on the over-familiarity that students are accustomed to when using the internet. Many students are used to spending a lot of time on social media and other online platforms where they interact informally, which lulls them into thinking that their online classes are a similar space. Laird explains that “The egalitarian atmosphere of the Internet chat room transfers rapidly and inappropriately to the online classroom” (Laird 1). This issue goes back to the idea of interaction that Jacobs analyzed. With in-person learning, Students see their professor’s authority from their interaction. As Laird says, seeing her graying hair and mode of dress would show her students that she is not a peer but an instructor (Laird 1). One-on-one interaction between instructors and students asserts authority, and lack of this interaction with online learning erodes the authority and respect accorded to the teachers.
Students also treat learning materials very differently in online learning compared to in-person classrooms. This applies to materials such as handouts ad textbooks. Online learning avails all the learning materials in electronic form, making it easy for students to click on a button and download what they need. However, many online students do not make use of such resources (De Paepe, et al. 130). As Laird highlights the difference with in-person learning, writing, “In traditional classrooms, students do not pick up or download only the handouts that appeal to them; most do not try to begin the semester’s final project without instruction in the material on which it is based.” (Laird 1) Online students in comparison, only make use of the materials which appeal to them, resulting in shallow learning and inability to complete their assignments as expected.
In conclusion, online learning is very different from the brick-and-mortar classroom. Although students are expected to put the same effort into their learning regardless of the instruction mode, this is rarely the case. Some of the significant differences between online and in-person learning arise with deadlines, learning materials, overfamiliarity, and unrealistic expectations. Before taking up online learning, both students and instructors need to be aware of the challenges that come with different modes of learning so that they can adapt accordingly. Works Cited
De Paepe, Liesbeth, Chang Zhu, and Koen Depryck. “Online language teaching: Teacher perceptions of effective communication tools, required skills and challenges of online teaching.” Journal of Interactive Learning Research 29.1 (2018): 129-142.
Jacobs, Pearl. “The challenges of online courses for the instructor.” Sacred Hear University. (August 2013). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=cj_facLaird, Elle. “I’m Your Teacher, Not Your Internet-Service Provider.” WebCT.3 January 2003. Retrieved from http://celt.cui.edu/celt/webct_for_instructors/Laird_Article.htm