For our advocacy project, we are doing a call to stop smoking around kids. We decided to go with a movie for several reasons. The main one is that we just feel like it will be the most effective method to communicate our message.

At this point, we are planning to create a video similar to a television commercial. Because we are following this type of model, we will probably be creating a video around one minute in length. This may prove challenging, to get everything we want to say in 60 seconds.

Our plan is to create a two-part video. The first segment will be something of a mockery, promoting smoking. We are thinking of perhaps an advertisement for cigarettes. Due to the somewhat limited resources that iMovie has to offer, we figured this type of approach would be easier to create without fear of copyright. So the first 30-40 seconds will be somewhat corny and slightly overdramatic. Then, the remaining time will be very serious. At this point, we will lay out our message: stop smoking around children.

At John’s suggestion, we are creating this video with the intention that it could be used by one of the numerous organizations that supports this message. Some are informational.  Others want the public to support a particular bill or take a certain action. Two of these organizations we have found so far are GASP and the Michigan Department of Community Health.

The copyright issue is going to prove problematic. If we have the intention of sending this video to legitimate organizations, we have to be really careful about all the photos we use. We are already having trouble finding websites we can get good stock photos from. Also, we are going to have to do the same thing for music.

For my advocacy project, I am going to be working with Mark. My topic did not lend itself very well to this assignment. (I am not exactly sure how I would have turned the overdiagnosis of ADHD and overprescription of drugs into a movement…) So, I am working with Mark and we will be focusing on second hand smoke, in regards to children and a particular law in the works in Texas. The bill wants to make it illegal to smoke in the presence of children, specifically in close contact.

The purpose of this advocacy project is to spread awareness and increase support for this law. The take-home message will be to prevent people from smoking around children.

Our strategy might be a strong pathetic appeal. We can talk about all the problems smoking causes not only for the smoker, but for those around the smoker as well. We will focus on the effects on children and how they are not in control of their environments.

The audience for this could really be trifold. This could be directed toward smokers, to encourage them not to smoke around kids. It could target anyone who knows a smoker and has experienced the person smoking around them. Thirdly, this could address anyone who has kids and has their children’s best interest at heart. Actually, this basically could apply to anyone who has smoked, has children, or knows anyone who fits into those categories.

We haven’t decided on our medium for sure yet. Personally, I hate iMovie. (That History of a Public Controversy Project really did me in…) But, if my dear partner really wants to do that, I wouldn’t be opposed. Unfortunately, I feel like this might be the most effective medium because it would really help with the pathos. Mark mentioned doing a podcast, which I like the sounds of. We will work out the details soon!

Kate Kielceski

John Minbiole

CAS 138T

29 March 2013

Rough Draft

            In 2011, the Kaiser Health Foundation estimated that over 3.76 billion medications were prescribed in the United States alone. This figure averaged to over 11 prescriptions per American. The Foundation also accounted for the skewed ratios within the population and approximated that children between 0 and 18 were taking four medications. More starling is the number of improperly prescribed drugs or drugs prescribed for the wrong reason.  Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University shared his fears about this frightening trend with Reuters saying, “Only a small percentage of antipsychotic treatment of children (6 percent) and adolescents (13 percent) is for FDA-approved clinical applications,” (National Disaster…1). One major problem is the over-prescription and incorrect prescribing of drugs to children and adolescents for disorders like ADHD. In a study done of adolescents in North Carolina, Angola and colleagues found that of the 7.3% of children taking a stimulant drug, only 3.4% showed unequivocal signs of needing them. Drugs are being prescribed too often and with not enough accuracy, particularly for ADHD. This issue is a major issue on the current political agenda and something needs to be done about it.

According to Dr. Daniel F. Connor, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is the “most extensively studied pediatric mental health disorder.” Yet ADHD has a history littered with disagreements, discrepancies and opposing viewpoints. ADHD was first described in 1902 by and English pediatrician, Sir George Frederick. His diagnoses focused on symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity. The disorder was defined many ways during the 20^th Century. It wasn’t until 1980 that ADHD was officially recognized by the DSM-III, which focused on the inattention aspect of the disorder. Finally the DSM-IV categorized the disorder into three subcategories: combined, inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive. This is the ADHD most people are familiar with today.

Despite finally having an agreed upon definition, the disorder was not widely diagnosed. Before 1970, ADHD was rarely diagnosed. However, between 1980 to 2007, “there was an almost 8-fold increase of ADHD prevalence in the United States compared with rates of 40 years ago,” (Problems of Overdiagnosis…1). In addition to a huge change in the last 40 years, the trend has been high even since the 1990s. Safer and colleagues have assessed the percentage of kids who have been diagnosed in recent years. They estimate that in the late 1990s, about 4% of American children had been diagnosed with ADHD. Comparatively, they believe in 2007 this figure has risen to 7.8% of kids age 4 to 17, almost doubling the figure of 20 years earlier (Problems of Diagnosis…1).

The statistics clearly support the claim that ADHD has been increasingly diagnosed and that prescriptions as treatment are on the rise. The debate lies in the details. Why have ADHD diagnoses and in turn prescription medications increased so drastically in recent years? What is the cause? The two most basic arguments take directly opposite stances. One side argues for an increased awareness of the disorder and a movement to help kids overcome their struggle. The counterargument is the over-prescription of stimulants due to greedy doctors, over-concerned or fearful parents, and a flawed health care system that prevents doctors from really understanding their patients’ cases. The latter argument holds up under further investigation.

Paragraph with information on both sides but in support of the second argument.

            The evidence supports the claim that America has a drug problem. We are a culture of quick-fixes but unfortunately in the case of health care, this method is often more detrimental than beneficial. What can be done about this problem?

There are many possible solutions to this problem. Some are more feasible and manageable than others. A rather large and complicated solution would encompass and affect more than just the over-prescription of medication to treat ADHD. This solution would be a revolution in the health care system. When patients only have 15 minutes with a doctor, there is no way that a doctor can fully understand the patients’ histories, symptoms, daily routines, lifestyles and other facts necessary to fully diagnose a disorder. Sanford Newmark, head of the pediatric integrative neurodevelopmental program at the University of California, agrees with this stance. He claims that a “thorough history and examination [are] needed for an accurate assessment,” (Are ADHD Medications Overprescribed? 1). He believes such a solution would involve talking to parents, the child and teachers, as well as reviewing school records and other testing.” This change would prevent children and youth who are simply immature, distracted or undisciplined from being put on powerful medications they do not actually need.

Groups such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should enforce further, stricter policies and regulations on the prescribing of drugs to children once it is determined that they really need medications for ADHD.

Counterargument:

-More advanced technology allows for more medications and more solutions.

-New technology not well-researched (side effects, long-term effects)

-An increased awareness lead to more visits to doctors, ergo, more prescriptions.

-More prescriptions -> more money for doctors.

-Fear of imperfections in society -> prescriptions fix problems.

Solution/Policy:

-Stricter FDA regulations

-If ADHD route is taken, policy for more in-depth testing.

DSM

Health care issues, not enough time.

Honestly, I had a lot of other writing due this week so I didn’t have as much time to work as  I was hoping. In addition, I also slightly changed the focus of my paper after my conference. Any input would be great, but keep in mind this is still and extremely rough draft. Thanks!

For my persuasive essay, I think I have decided to do the drug topic. There is still a lot to talk about, but I am going to try to focus on prescription drugs and kids/teens. However, even after doing some further research, there is still a lot going on. I think I’m really going to have to get into my writing or a super detailed outline before I figure out exactly how I’m going to go about this.

Paragraph 1: Shockingly startling statistic (yay alliteration) about prescription drugs and youth to draw attention to the significance of this matter. My thesis will be something along the lines of: America’s youth are prescribed too many drugs and as a result may suffer long-term effects.

Paragraph 2: History. What exactly is going on with this issue? When did it start? To what extent has it grown and what precisely does it entail? (Names of specific drugs and their uses, statistics and numbers to illustrate.)

Paragraph 3: Here’s PROBLEM 1. A lot of this issue is morality. It involves the doctors who prescribe these drugs even if the kids don’t need them to make extra money. It’s the parents who are giving kids drugs if they aren’t sure, or to make their own lives easier. I’m really struggling on how to make a policy about this and who would enforce it.

Paragraph 4: PROBLEM 2. How do you refute over prescribing drugs to kids? Seriously, who is going to think this is a good thing? I suppose I could take the approach “what if kids really need these drugs?” I suppose I will have to look into that further.

Paragraph 5: Conclusion. Brief summary and restating of thesis. A last thought and one final push for my policy.

So, paragraph 6. I definitely have a vision for where I want this persuasive essay to go. I’m just having trouble getting my thoughts organized because this topic isn’t as legally cut-and-dry as other topics. Up until now I’ve been talking about this problem that kids are being over-prescribed medications that they might not need. What I really concerns me is why this is happening. Is it because as a society, we fear differences or are afraid that there will be something “wrong” with us? Also, what is this going to do to my and the next generation?

Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

When it comes to choosing a topic for my persuasive essay/advocacy project, I am having a hard time. (I know, this is incredibly shocking.) There is a lot to consider with the topic because we will be doing two projects about one issue. I have some different ideas but the one I am leaning toward deals with the over prescription of behavioral or psychoactive drugs. I could approach this topic a number of ways. One of the most interesting aspects is the controversy surrounding drugs for kids with ADHD. There has been much discussion recently about the age that children are being given these drugs and what the long-term effects of this practice will be. Another aspect of the discussion is whether or not all of these kids on medication actually have ADHD or not and if that can really be determined at such a young age.

I could also take a number of other approaches though. Instead of focusing on ADHD specifically, I could simply discuss the over prescription of drugs to kids in general, or adults for that matter. If I pursue any topic in this area, the policy would most likely deal with the FDA and the federal government.

On the other hand, I do enjoy my civics issue blog topic quite a lot. However, I am unsure what policies would relate to multiculturalism. One that I considered is the issue of English as our national language. The United States does not actually have an official language and recently, there has been a push to promote English to this position. Clearly the policy for this topic would be directed toward the national government. I fear that I would struggle to develop an advocacy project based on this issue.

Any feedback on how to narrow down these ideas or any additional options would be greatly appreciated!

I find it difficult to write this blog at this point, just because we haven’t discussed moderation fully yet. However, I think I have a pretty good idea of how I will handle my moderating.

My main goal will be to initiate a though-provoking conversation that is enlightening for everyone. Ideally, both sides of the discussion will learn something and see things a little differently after the deliberation. How will I go about doing this? I hope to be fairly informed on the issue before beginning in order to ask provocative and engaging questions. I will keep the deliberation moving forward in an organized fashion, not letting the discussion get too far off topic. I will point out flaws in arguments in hopes of pushing the group toward a conclusion or agreement. Also, I will keep the discussion balanced, with both sides contributing equally and no one person dominating the conversation. I will try to stay out of the conversation as much as possible, but interrupt and redirect it if necessary. However, I will not include my personal opinion, views or thoughts on the issue.

Another issue I might face is not enough discussion, which sometimes is a problem in our class. If this happens, my job as the monitor will be to call on people directly or ask questions in a way that people can more easily respond to.

In theory, the monitor should have the easiest job. The monitor simply asks a question and the group should take it from there. I realize this is not the case and the monitor’s responsibility for the outcome of the deliberation. Overall though, I am very unsure what this will entail simply because I have never participated in any formal deliberation or debate before. Hopefully I will learn something along the way and moderate a great debate.

Not going to lie, I really like this video. The spatula scene grabbed my attention right off the bat simply because it was so unexpected. From the first few seconds I was completely tuned in and paying close attention to each and every word. But let’s talk about the words.

I’ve never really considered labels as an influence on the way I think about issues or my own beliefs. But after watching this video, I have a whole different perspective. Now that is not to say that I agreed with everything the man in the video said. I don’t. But he did open my eyes to the problem behind labeling and the fact that there is anything to think about labeling at all.

In the video, the narrator focuses on how important word choice is to peoples’ perceptions and opinions on matters. He discusses how when an organization, a party, or a president coins a term, they are playing off of peoples’ emotions. For example, the term “weapons of mass destruction” is supposed to remind us of the September 11^th attacks on the World Trade Center. The term “weapons of war” are supposed to create an image of the atrocities associated with war. He also brings up the “No Child Left Behind” act and “The War on Drugs.”

Before watching this video, I had never considered the impact of these word choices before. I always just took them for what they were: an accurate description of the thing itself. However, I now see the power that word choice can have to someone’s views or ideas.

Despite the enlightenment that this bit of video provided, I do have some objections.  The feel of the video is very dark.  The background is black.  The narrator and whatever props he holds are the only things clearly lit.  I almost got the feel toward the end that the narrator thinks these word choices are all a big conspiracy that we need to be protected from.  I don’t believe this is true, nor do I necessarily believe that word choice plays quite as big a role in the grand scheme of things as the narrator would like to believe.

Regardless of the extent to which I agree with the video, I do believe that it raises some valid points. Word choice and labeling are definitely tools being used in this country today and I am glad that I am more aware of this issue.