Matching Items (70)
Description
Hispanic youth have the highest risk for obesity, making this population a key priority for early childhood interventions to prevent the development of adult obesity and its consequences. Involving parents in these interventions is essential to support positive long-term physical activity and nutrition habits. Interventions in the past have engaged parents by providing information about nutrition and fruit and vegetable intake through written materials or text such as newsletters and text messages. The Sustainability via Active Garden Education (SAGE) intervention used gardening and interactive activities to teach preschool children ages 3-5 about healthy eating and physical activity. It aimed to increase physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake in preschool children as well as improve related parenting practices. The intervention utilized newsletters to engage parents by promoting opportunities to increase physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake for their children at home. The newsletters also encouraged parents to discuss what was learned during the SAGE lessons with their children. The purpose of this paper is to describe the content of the newsletters and determine the parent perception of the newsletters through parent survey responses. This can help inform future childhood obesity interventions and parent engagement.
ContributorsVi, Vinny (Author) / Lee, Rebecca (Thesis director) / Martinelli, Sarah (Committee member) / Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
Libertarians affirm the right to liberty, i.e., the right to do what one wants free from interference. Libertarians also affirm the right to private property. One objection to libertarianism is that private property relations restrict liberty. This objection appears to have the consequence that libertarianism is an incoherent position. I examine Jan Narveson's version of the libertarian view and his defense of its coherence. Narveson understands the right to liberty as a prohibition on the initiation of force. I argue that if that is what the right to liberty is, then the enforcement of property rights violates it. I also examine Narveson's attempt to support private property with his distinction between interference with and mere prevention of activity and argue that this distinction does not do the work that he needs it to do. My conclusion is that libertarianism is, in a sense, impossible because conceptually unsound.
ContributorsSchimke, Christopher (Author) / de Marneffe, Peter (Thesis advisor) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Blackson, Thomas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
With the number of internationally-run clinical drug trials increasing, the double standards between those in developed nations and those in developing nations are being scrutinized under the ethical microscope. Many argue that several pharmaceutical companies and researchers are exploiting developing nation participants. Two issues of concern are the use of a placebo control when an effective alternative treatment exists and the lack of drug availability to the country that hosted the clinical trial should the experimental drug prove effective. Though intuitively this seems like an instance of exploitation, philosophically, exploitation theories cannot adequately account for the wrongdoing in these cases. My project has two parts. First, after explaining why the theories of Alan Wertheimer, John Lawrence Hill, and Ruth Sample fail to explain the exploitation in clinical drug research, I provide an alternative account of exploitation that can explain why the double standard in clinical research is harmful. Rather than craft a single theory encompassing all instances of exploitation, I offer an account of a type, or subset, of exploitation that I refer to as comparative exploitation. The double standards in clinical research fall under the category of comparative exploitation. Furthermore, while many critics maintain that cases of comparative exploitation, including clinical research, are mutually beneficial, they are actually harmful to its victims. I explain the harm of comparative exploitation using Ben Bradley's counterfactual account of harm and Larry May's theory of sharing responsibility. The second part of my project focuses on the "standard of care" argument, which most defenders use to justify the double standard in clinical research. I elaborate on Ruth Macklin's position that advocates of the "standard of care" position make three faulty assumptions: placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard, the only relevant question responsive to the host country's health needs is "Is the experimental product being studied better than the 'nothing' now available to the population?", and the only way of obtaining affordable products is to test cheap alternatives to replace the expensive ones. In the end, I advocate moving towards a universalizing of standards in order to avoid exploitation.
ContributorsFundora, Danielle (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Brake, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
At present, the ideological bias in the human enhancement debate holds that opponents to human enhancement are primarily techno-conservatives who, lacking any reasonable, systematic account of why we ought to be so opposed, simply resort to a sort of fear-mongering and anti-meliorism. This dissertation means to counteract said bias by offering just such an account. Offered herein is a heuristic explanation of how, given a thorough understanding of enhancement both as a technology and as an attitude, we can predict a likely future of rampant commodification and dehumanization of man, and a veritable assault on human flourishing.
ContributorsMilleson, Valerye Michelle (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / French, Peter (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
In the past 100 years pet, zoo/aquarium, and research animals have gained unprecedented legal protection from unnecessary human harm via the creation of strict animal cruelty laws. Due to the work of moral philosophers and compassionate lawyers/judges animal cruelty laws have been improved to provide harsher punishments for violations, had their scopes widened to include more animals and had their language changed to better match our evolving conception of animals as independent living entities rather than as merely things for human use. However, while the group of pet, zoo/aquarium, and research animals has enjoyed more consideration by the US legal system, another group of animals has inexplicably been ignored. The farm animals that humans raise for use as food are exempted from nearly every state and federal animal cruelty law for no justifiable reason. In this paper I will argue that our best moral and legal theories concede that we should take animal suffering seriously, and that no relevant difference exists between the group of animals protected by animal cruelty laws and farm animals. Given the lack of a relevant distinction between these two groups I will conclude that current animal cruelty laws should be amended to include farm animals.
ContributorsDeCoster, Miles (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Blackson, Thomas (Committee member) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
The prospect of anti-aging or life extension technology is controversial in biogerentology but deemed even by skeptical experts to warrant discussion. I discuss the justifications that the probability of life extension technology being developed in the near future is reasonably high and that this research justifies the time and money it receives. I investigate potential ethical and societal issues anti-aging technology might create. This paper addresses inequality of access, economic cost, changes in quality of life, the role of death in human life, if and how the technology should be regulated and how parties who choose not to undergo treatment can be fairly treated, even when they are a minority.
ContributorsGlesener, Julia Hannah (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / DeSerpa, Allan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Human subject research is a sensitive ethical topic in today's society, and with good cause. The history of human subject research is full of tragedy and wrongdoing, which is what has led to the firm restrictions we presently have. At the same time, we also acknowledge the value behind human subject research and the information science can obtain from such endeavors. This project analyzes this conundrum through a narrative describing a group of scientists who choose to ignore some of the laws and regulations concerning human subject research in order to pursue neurological based research for a "greater good." In the novella, the scientists end up harming several people while performing their illegal research, but are able to obtain successful results. However, the group is eventually caught, and end up having to face the consequences of their actions. The situations and interactions the story presents are meant to juxtapose both sides of the human subject research ethical argument in a unique way in order to allow the reader to critically think through the argument themselves and form their own opinions on the matter.
ContributorsPirotte, Benjamin Daniel (Author) / Finn, Edward (Thesis director) / Cook, Paul (Committee member) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Memory augmentation will play a vital role in the development of our future. The predicted introduction of downloadable brains will be the first of many neurocognitive technologies that will alter our lives at both the societal and individual levels. These technologies can affect everything from educational institutions to the judicial system, meanwhile raising issues such as autonomy, human psychology, and selfhood. Because of its tremendous potential, memory augmentation and its implications should thoroughly be examined.
ContributorsKim, Jinkyu (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Helms Tillery, Stephen (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation (Contributor) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
Through a brief analysis of punishment theory as well as the history of punishment in the United States, this work will focus on the current state of the punishment system that is characterized by a recent era of mass incarceration. The policies of mass incarceration coupled with economic downturns, has led to the emergence of an extremely profitable private prison industry. The prominence of this industry raises questions of legitimacy as well as questions of the interests that are being represented through apparent legislative manipulation via a powerful lobby. As with past eras of punishment, this current era that is characterized by policies of mass incarceration will presumably end in the future as the economic, political and social sensibilities shift. This project concludes with an analysis of possible strategies of reform and decarceration that may characterize the future of the punishment system in the United States.
ContributorsSoronson, Jason William (Author) / Sigler, Mary (Thesis director) / Lauderdale, Pat (Committee member) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2013-05
Description
Human genetic engineering, the manipulation of genomic DNA, is an up and coming field in which soon we will no longer be asking if we can do it, but should we do it? It raises ethical questions regarding autonomy, the concept that an individual is capable of self-governance and making informed decisions, as well as consent of those who undergo genetic manipulation. Along with the ethical questions come issues of equality, equal opportunity of usage, and responsibility of those who use such technologies. The benefits and consequences of genetically engineering humans must be examined, such as the eradication of genetic diseases and the ability to alter ourselves as we desire, as well as the possible unintended outcomes, such as a two-class society and insurmountable inequality. Eugenics and the Transhumanism movement will also be examined, and how they could affect genetic engineering. Regulations will be needed, to limit parents on how they can modify their children and on how adults can modify themselves, to ensure the safe future of genetic engineering.
ContributorsThompson, Carlie Jane (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason Scott (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2013-12