[Get Solution] Comparative Reasoning

Discussion 1(COMPARATIVE REASONING)   Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: ·    Textbook: Chapter 12 ·    Lesson 1, 2 ·    Link (library article): The Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953 (Links to an external site.) ·    Link (library article): The Opioid Epidemic: Who Is to Blame? (Links to an external site.) ·    Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It’s Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs (Links to an external site.) ·    Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings) Introduction The medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes “… became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations” (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice” (Gardner & Brandt, 2006). The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019). Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following: ·    In what way are the two situations comparable? ·    In what way are they different? ·    Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific. Follow-Up Post Instructions Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.   Discussion 2 (EMPIRICAL REASONING)   Required Resource Read/review the following resources for this activity: ·    Textbook: Chapter 14 ·    Lesson 1, 2 ·    Link (library article): Myopia and Ambient Lighting at Night (Links to an external site.) ·    Link (library article): Myopia and Ambient Night-Time Lighting (Links to an external site.) ·    Link (website): What Are Clinical Trials and Studies? (Links to an external site.) ·    Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings) Introduction As the text points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause/effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies. In 1999, a study on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (Quinn). The study received wide-spread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings. Initial Post Instructions Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (including the website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies and how methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported. Reportage of both studies can be found with an Internet search using all of the following terms: .