Are Drug Abusers a Cause Worth Fighting For? When thinking about the numerous causes to rally for, do drug abusers make the list? Most philanthropists would generally focus their attention and resources towards cancer or children, rather than drug addicts. There has been a long standing battle between drugs and the people who succumb to them. Many organizations have made it their mission to help drug abusers break the cycle of addiction and help them claim back the lives that drugs had cost them. One focus has been on the life-saving drug naloxone, which counteracts the effects of an overdose.
According to writer Julie Turkewitz in her article “An Effort to Expand Access to a Drug That Could Save Victims of Overdoses,” his drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat overdoses since 1971 , yet it is not commonly available. The highlight of her focus is in New York and the pilot program that concludes in 2014, consisting of naloxone training for E. M. T. ‘s. Julie Turkewitz effectively advocated for a more widespread availability and of the drug naloxone through the use of pathos, logos, and ethos.
Throughout the article, the strong use of pathos was used to ffectively demonstrate the need for a larger availability of naloxone. The writer begins by using pathos to make the reader view drug abusers as victims that are not to blame for their actions. The writer used pathos to portray Samantha Dittmeier, a drug user that subsequently overdosed, as a victim and not as an addict by saying “She was very loving, very compassionate… unfortunately, the addiction got to her” (Turkewitz 1).
The qualities of being “loving” and “compassionate” listed in the previous quote are not generally associated with a typical drug addict but are words ore likely to reference a friend or loved one. Using this quote sets up the drug users and victims, people that we don’t want to die and could be saved by increased naloxone distribution. The writer adds to this by quoting the mother that had a son die due to a heroin overdose: “l wish I’d known about this beforehand. It’s kind of like, ‘Thank God it’s here,’ but it’s taken so long for them to get it here” (Turkewitz 2).
This quote is used to appeal to the compassion of the reader and makes it seem as if he would have been saved had naloxone been more readily available. The use of the hrase, “the addiction got to her,” appeals to the reader’s emotions of sympathy to imply that the drugs are to blame and not the user, further portraying the drug abusers as victims. The writer specifically uses the words “drug users” and “drug abusers” instead of “drug addict. ” The term “addict” tends to have a negative connotation that the writer tried to avoid by using “user” in its place.
The writer also used pathos to stress her position: “The most common killers are opioids, a class of painkillers that include prescription drugs like Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet, as ell as illegal narcotics like heroin” (Turkewitz 1). This sentence is intended to draw a correlation between a more common drug that is more easily accessible and heroin, readers’ sympathy once again by portraying “drug users” as victims by comparing “substance abusers” to children who accidentally wander into a parent’s medicine cabinet.
Children are viewed as innocent and by using substance abusers in the same sentence, the writer is attempting relate the positive views towards children to substance abusers. This comparison is an effective use of pathos and proves the eed for a more widespread availability of naloxone. The writer used pathos as a conclusion in the last two sentences of the article. She begins by referencing a study published in 2012 by the Annals of Internal Medicine, “one life could be saved for every 227 naloxone kits distributed to heroin users and those close to them” (Turkewitz 3).
Is that enough of a difference to Justify increasing naloxone distribution? The writer is using pathos by immediately following this research with a quote from Dr. Sharon Stancliff: “Public health moves slow. This is really an extremely afe, safe medication” (Turkewitz 3). This plays on empathy to help people and care for those less fortunate. The writer had previously used pathos to appeal to the reader’s sympathy for drug addicts by referring to them as users and is now adding to that.
She is again furthering her position to increase distribution of naloxone because the number of lives saved could be higher than one per 227 kits if naloxone was more widely distributed. The writer also effectively used logos to further prove her stance that naloxone should be made more available. The main way Turkewitz ampaigns for an increase in trained personnel to administer the drug is by logically arguing the growing number of people killed by opioid overdoses. Statewide, opioid overdoses killed 2,051 people in 2011, more than twice the number that they killed in 2004″ (Turkewitz 1). The phrase “that they killed” stands out because it is showing a personification of the drugs and allows the drugs to be blamed for the overdoses and not the drug users that take the drugs. The writer personifies the drugs to help prove that naloxone should be readily available as a way to fght against the drugs. The writer goes on to logically argue the positive aspects of naloxone, beyond the life- saving potential.
She states the drug naloxone is “easy-to-administer” and “inexpensive” (Turkewitz 1), making sure to stress the fact that it would not be a burden on tax dollars to produce and distribute to trained individuals adequately showing naloxone should be made more available. “The training takes 10 minutes to one hour,” (Turkewitz 2) showing that naloxone is quick and easy to train, another reassurance against negative criticism about the possible increased cost of having a ider distribution of naloxone.
The writer then continues to state “The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug to treat overdoses in 1971, and since then it has been widely used in hospitals” (Turkewitz 1). The writer used logos to show the drug has been used for some time, with little to no side effects and is commonly used by medical professionals to this day. This shows that naloxone is safe and if there were any major side effects, they would have been discovered already. The writer is again reassuring the reader that the drug is safe and should be more available to attempt o save more lives.
Showing the cost effectiveness of naloxone logically proves that there needs to be a wider distribution to help save more lives. Finally, the writer effectively uses ethos to show naloxone should be more readily available. The main way Turkewitz used ethos was to discuss the current training programs in effect, to her argument, she summarizes the success of a recent pilot program in New York and effectively supports her position that naloxone should be more available: “Since spring 2012, newly trained E. M. T. ‘s have administered naloxone to 197 people who verdosed” (Turkewitz 2).
This quote shows that the increased training and availability of naloxone has already helped save lives. The writer used this quote to logically argue that this is a lifesaving drug that warrants the additional training. This research effectively proves the writer’s stance that naloxone should be more widespread. Throughout the article, the writer quotes several credible sources. One of the most credible sources is Paul A. Werfel, who oversees the E. M. T. and paramedic training program at Stony Brook University.
His argument to naloxone eing more widespread is, “drug users can become combative after they are given naloxone. The average E. M. T. in Suffolk may not necessarily have the tools to handle that” (Turkewitz 2). Werfel is a credible source because of his position at Stony Brook University training emergency medical technicians. He knows the ins and outs of the challenges that E. M. T. ‘s deal with on a daily basis and their limitations in training. He adds credibility to her position because his only quoted argument is that drug users become combative, a situation that could be easily trained to handle.
New Deals impacts
a-Did the New Deal have a positive or negative impact on the United States? (250-300 words)
b- respond to two (2) other classmates. Let’s have a lively discussion! (100 words each)
In my opinion The New Deal had for the most part a positive impact on the United States. The New Deal embraced an ideology that we are all in this together. FDR three R’s plan consisted of ideas that served more compassion to the people as opposed to his predecessor TR. FDR ideas, while too ambitious to be fulfilled completely, still tried to embrace America’s working class. He promised federal relief and he also put sort of an insurance in banking institutions with the FDIC reforms. He also separated commercial banks from investment baks with The Glass Steel Act. A lot this was done to build confidence for banks again to get the economy back on its feet. After seeing the issues from the stock market he brought up the issue of under regulation. To fix this issue he created the SEC to regulate federally the stock market. When it came to the farmers, FDR tried to help by instituting new farming practices to stop overproduction, like the introduction of crop rotation. He understood that the farmers main purpose was to provide for it’s family but farming could not be beneficial if the farmers didn’t know how to farm.
Even if certain reforms like the Tennessee Valley Damn, which essentially used taxpayer money to build something the government could profit from, were not successful at helping the people it still doesn’t mean FDR plans were all negative. I do believe it had a positive impact for the United States because it started creating a unity feeling which the country needed. I think FDR had good intentions even if all of them were not successful in brining the economy back on a good financial track. All in all it was a good start from trying to leave The Great Depression behind
After the lecture I found myself recalling lessons from grade school. And all that I can remember from my teachers is all the good that came from the New Deals. How FDR was a hero and how he stepped up in a time of crisis to help the American people. Now as an adult I find myself a little conflicted. It wasn’t all that great. I want to say this is the first I’ve heard of these acts, maybe I wasn’t paying attention in class or maybe they were left out intentionally. The one that really stood out was the Civil Works Administration. How it provided this false sense of reclaiming a life with purpose. Raking leaves from one side to another seems maddening to me. And not only is it maddening but in a small scale resembles what the Soviet Union was doing with trucks on the other side of the world. If I was presented with this question before this lecture I would’ve answered, yes, of course It was a positive impact! With zero questions and no mixed feelings. Now one hour and thirty-seven later, I say my pride is hurt as an American. Luckily those negative impacts were ruled unconstitutional and a second New deal pushed through. And I really don’t know what a third would’ve done. I will end my opinion as a positive impact. It showed how our supreme court prevailed through acts that didn’t function, it showed that American people were still willing to work, it gave the families of the Tennessee electricity, and it gave some confidence back to the people.