www radio
www radio with http://www.mdnewscast.net

www radio

Medical Newscast

News for 29-Feb-24

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Normal Blood Pressure in Clinic May Mask Hypertension

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Yoga Called Good Medicine for High Blood Pressure

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
glipizide and metformin (Metaglip has been discontinued in the US)

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
More Research Cites Salt's Potential Health Risks

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Standing or 'Easy' Walks May Help Type 2 Diabetics Control Blood Sugar

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Chemo More Damaging to Hearts of Diabetics: Study

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Even Small Rise in Blood Pressure Can Harm Black Patients

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Sharp Drop in Blood Pressure After Rx May Be Risky for Some Heart Patients

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Study Finds Worrisome Heart Effects Among Some Football Players

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Daily Can of Soda Boosts Odds for Prediabetes, Study Finds

Search the Web
www radio
jet audio
radio in
opti audio
audio converter
capital radio
radio city music
audio 16
emisoras de radio
radio 3

The Best www radio website

All the www radio information you need to know about is right here. Presented and researched by http://www.mdnewscast.net. We've searched the information super highway far and wide to provide you with the best www radio site on the internet today. The links below will assist you in your efforts to find the information that you are looking for about
www radio.

www radio

Medical Newscast
For information about Medical Newscasts look no further. We have links to great resources regarding all forms of medical internet broadcasting.
Medical Newscast

Customer Testimonials on www radio


We would never claim to be world authorities on www radio but our passion and interest in this area has encouraged us to source out the best locations for www radio purchases and products.

We have set a number of important criteria for evaluating www radio websites. Among these are (1) secure shopping areas for www radio purchases; (2) well documented customer support areas and (3) testimonials from happy clients. Just click on the link below and you will see how these apply:

Customer testimonials are a clear indication that a www radio website is doing a good job. People who have purchased www radio and received their goods in a prompt and efficient manner are the best advertising a business can have. In short they are saying **Buy your www radio here**.

Long established highly reputable www radio suppliers will even provide a contact link so that you can talk directly with the customer. This means that they are so confident that their www radio customer has had a good experience that they are prepared to put you in direct contact with them.

Ultimately it will be your www radio shopping experience that determines how happy you are with the supplier. We'd like to think of ourselves as intermediaries to ensure that your www radio shopping experiences are positive ones. Our website is full of solid evidence backing up the shopping links shown above.

www radio

Medical Newscast
For information about Medical Newscasts look no further. We have links to great resources regarding all forms of medical internet broadcasting.
Medical Newscast

The following link will take you to a great www radio supplier who can help you with exactly what you need.

Of course if you just can't get enough www radio information then keep on browsing AFTER you add this page to your favourites. Why?

Because when you finally get sick of browsing through the rubbish for www radio you'll want to get back here as quickly as possible so you can find the www radio information you were after in the first place.

So if you are serious about finding great www radio information, add us to your favourites or click the above link right now.

The Debate about Cloning

 by: Sam Vaknin

There are two types of cloning. One involves harvesting stem cells from embryos ("therapeutic cloning"). These are the biological equivalent of a template. They can develop into any kind of mature functional cell and thus help cure many degenerative and auto-immune diseases.

The other kind of cloning is much derided in popular culture - and elsewhere - as the harbinger of a Brave, New World. A nucleus from any cell of a donor is embedded in an egg whose own nucleus has been removed. The egg is then implanted in a woman's womb and a cloned baby is born nine months later. Biologically, the cloned infant is a replica of the donor.

Cloning is often confused with other advances in bio-medicine and bio-engineering - such as genetic selection. It cannot - in itself - be used to produce "perfect humans" or select sex or other traits. Hence, some of the arguments against cloning are either specious or fuelled by ignorance.

It is true, though, that cloning, used in conjunction with other bio-technologies, raises serious bio-ethical questions. Scare scenarios of humans cultivated in sinister labs as sources of spare body parts, "designer babies", "master races", or "genetic sex slaves" - formerly the preserve of B sci-fi movies - have invaded mainstream discourse.

Still, cloning touches upon Mankind's most basic fears and hopes. It invokes the most intractable ethical and moral dilemmas. As an inevitable result, the debate is often more passionate than informed.

I. Right to Life Arguments

According to cloning's detractors, the nucleus removed from the egg could otherwise have developed into a human being. Thus, removing the nucleus amounts to murder.

It is a fundamental principle of most moral theories that all human beings have a right to life. The existence of a right implies obligations or duties of third parties towards the right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people. The fact that one possesses a certain right - prescribes to others certain obligatory behaviours and proscribes certain acts or omissions. This Janus-like nature of rights and duties as two sides of the same ethical coin - creates great confusion. People often and easily confuse rights and their attendant duties or obligations with the morally decent, or even with the morally permissible. What one MUST do as a result of another's right - should never be confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do morally (in the absence of a right).

The right to life has eight distinct strains:

IA. The right to be brought to life

IB. The right to be born

IC. The right to have one's life maintained

ID. The right not to be killed

IE. The right to have one's life saved

IF. The right to save one's life (erroneously limited to the right to self-defence)

IG. The right to terminate one's life

IH. The right to have one's life terminated

IA. The Right to be Brought to Life

Only living people have rights. There is a debate whether an egg is a living person - but there can be no doubt that it exists. Its rights - whatever they are - derive from the fact that it exists and that it has the potential to develop life. The right to be brought to life (the right to become or to be) pertains to a yet non-alive entity and, therefore, is null and void. Had this right existed, it would have implied an obligation or duty to give life to the unborn and the not yet conceived. No such duty or obligation exist.

IB. The Right to be Born

The right to be born crystallizes at the moment of voluntary and intentional fertilization. If a scientist knowingly and intentionally causes in vitro fertilization for the explicit and express purpose of creating an embryo - then the resulting fertilized egg has a right to mature and be born. Furthermore, the born child has all the rights a child has against his parents: food, shelter, emotional nourishment, education, and so on.

It is debatable whether such rights of the fetus and, later, of the child, exist if there was no positive act of fertilization - but, on the contrary, an act which prevents possible fertilization, such as the removal of the nucleus (see IC below).

IC. The Right to Have One's Life Maintained

Does one have the right to maintain one's life and prolong them at other people's expense? Does one have the right to use other people's bodies, their property, their time, their resources and to deprive them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions, income, or any other thing?

The answer is yes and no.

No one has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at another INDIVIDUAL's expense (no matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required is). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between the parties, then such a right may crystallize in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as legal.

Example:

No fetus has a right to sustain its life, maintain, or prolong them at his mother's expense (no matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required of her is). Still, if she signed a contract with the fetus - by knowingly and willingly and intentionally conceiving it - such a right has crystallized and has created corresponding duties and obligations of the mother towards her fetus.

On the other hand, everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at SOCIETY's expense (no matter how major and significant the resources required are). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between the parties, then the abrogation of such a right may crystallize in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as legal.

Example:

Everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at society's expense. Public hospitals, state pension schemes, and police forces may be required to fulfill society's obligations - but fulfill them it must, no matter how major and significant the resources are. Still, if a person volunteered to join the army and a contract has been signed between the parties, then this right has been thus abrogated and the individual assumed certain duties and obligations, including the duty or obligation to give up his or her life to society.

ID. The Right not to be Killed

Every person has the right not to be killed unjustly. What constitutes "just killing" is a matter for an ethical calculus in the framework of a social contract.

But does A's right not to be killed include the right against third parties that they refrain from enforcing the rights of other people against A? Does A's right not to be killed preclude the righting of wrongs committed by A against others - even if the righting of such wrongs means the killing of A?

Not so. There is a moral obligation to right wrongs (to restore the rights of other people). If A maintains or prolongs his life ONLY by violating the rights of others and these other people object to it - then A must be killed if that is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert their rights.

This is doubly true if A's existence is, at best, debatable. An egg does not a human being make. Removal of the nucleus is an important step in life-saving research. An unfertilized egg has no rights at all.

IE. The Right to Have One's Life Saved

There is no such right as there is no corresponding moral obligation or duty to save a life. This "right" is a demonstration of the aforementioned muddle between the morally commendable, desirable and decent ("ought", "should") and the morally obligatory, the result of other people's rights ("must").

In some countries, the obligation to save life is legally codified. But while the law of the land may create a LEGAL right and correspo

Google

http://www.medmeet.com/
Take Your Meds | Medical Newscast | Medical Meetings | medical mailings | Medical Presentations

MD Newscast   Take Medicine Correctly   Doctors On-the-Net