It seems counterintuitive that girls are believed to be more likely to develop diseases as they grow older like asthma since they are considered “cleaner” as a complete gender. If you are looking at this argument from a one dimensional point it may seem like a reasonable thing to say , however if your not then you can blatantly see how the idea completely ignores several different factors like the race of the girls, location in which they grow up and their families wealth because each one can impact the girls interactions with the environment heavily . At the end of the day a city girl is going to act very different in terms of to getting dirty(in the sense of the article) than a country girl and the same thing can be applied to boys as well. So to group all girls together and say that girls in general are more likely to develop sickness later due to early childhood cleanliness is ridiculous.
It seems counterintuitive that their is believed to be some form of discrimination between people receiving anti depressant medication due to a prescription gap between whites and minorities. This is based on a study conducted in 2008 were it was found that roughly 11 percent of white American patients being treated for depression were prescribed medication while only 4 % of black and Hispanic American patients were prescribed meds for the same conditions. Which when you first hear this stat it does sound unfair until you realize something. In the study they didn’t publish the actual number of patients being treated for depression, but rather they only released the percentages of those groups that actually received medication for depression, meaning that the actual populations of people receiving treatment could be extremely distant from one another making that percentage pointless. Especially when you consider that both Blacks and Hispanics are minority groups(32% of the population) in America when compared to Whites(around 61% ), meaning that they are likely in a much lower demand for these antidepressants than White people due simply to population size differences.
It seems counterintuitive that Vancouver is trying to fix their heroin problem by feeding the addicts some of the best heroin money can buy. Its not even a program to help these addicts quite but rather one that basically promises these addicts free heroin everyday. As of today their are 26 people in this program, and the people in it are the hardcore addicts you aren’t even attempting to get clean or takes alternatives. Vancouver is using taxpayers money to continue to fuel these people addiction in order to as the city views it” keep them docile and keep the sort of demons of heroin addiction at bay…” It’s astonishing that rather than use the tax money to put these addicts through any kind of treatment to at least try to get them clean, they would rather just supply them with more. Which will down the road only influence other Vancouver addicts to simply continue their addiction since there are one, no repercussions to it and two they are getting supplied heroin from the government itself.
May I please get some feedback on this. To be honest I’m not entirely sure I did this right.