state board of education
state board of education with http://www.mdnewscast.net

state board of education

Medical Newscast

News for 18-Sep-25

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

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
High Blood Pressure Rates Have Doubled Worldwide Since 1975

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

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 Diabetes General
Health Tip: Creating an Insulin Routine

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Omega-3s a Recipe for Healthy Blood Pressure in Young Adults

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
High Blood Pressure Might Affect Some Kids' Thinking Ability

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Bonus From Your Blood Pressure Med: Fewer Fractures?

Search the Web
state board of education
childhood education
bilingual education
office of education
elementary education
early childhood education
education jobs
science education
further education
online education

The Best state board of education website

All the state board of education 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 state board of education site on the internet today. The links below will assist you in your efforts to find the information that you are looking for about
state board of education.

state board of education

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

Internet shopping for state board of education is steadily booming (forgive the pun) and this means high competition between sites selling and marketing state board of education products. This competition is good for you because it means everyone selling state board of education has to watch their pricing like a hawk just to keep ahead of the pack.

The poster child dotcom business, Amazon.com has a lot to teach aspiring Internet entrepreneurs. Yet despite its huge product inventory, convenience and customer service, the company continues to lose millions of dollars and has seen a precipitous drop in the price of its stock. But things change. Lean sharp state board of education companies are springing up. The state board of education wholesaler has entered the market.

state board of education

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

Many websites claim that they use information to personalize your experience on the site. For instance, if a state board of education site learns that you are interested in state board of education, the next time you visit the site, you might be presented with an article or advertisements for that and related products. But some state board of education websites sell this information to marketers, which means that you may find yourself receiving unwanted catalogs from garden suppliers. Our preferred retailer does not do this.

We feel so confident that your state board of education shopping experience will be a good one that we have built this site so that you can go straight to the prime state board of education retailer without wasting a lot of time checking out vast numbers of very ordinary providers.

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/
Fantasy Football Information | Medical Newscast | Meetings On The Net | Take Medicine Correctly | Go Antiques

Medical Meetings   Talk On The Net   medical mailings