Expert answer:Writing Project conduct an interview sometime this
Solved by verified expert:WP1B COMPLETE PART B ONLY NOT PART AI will conduct an interview sometime this week, so I will send you their information and transcript when I have it done and you can add some of the interview analysis in the paper. Also, I want the topic to be about Donald trump signing a memorandum to grant $200 million to provide STEM education in school, however; the problem should be about making sure he does not forget about underrepresented communities and how they are the main ones that need the help. Let me know if you have any questions (:
wp1_submission_example.docx
wp1ab_writ_340_a_h.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Trojan
1
Tommy Trojan
WRIT 340
Professor Tomkins
11/6/2017
Writing Project 1-B
HIV-positive Organ Transplants: More Organs, More Lives
Intended Audience: Medical Personnel Skeptical of HIV-positive Organ Transplants
INT
Every year, thousands of terminally ill people await organ transplants, procedures that
often constitute the difference between life and death. Yet only 1 in 4 patients survive the waitlist
(Martin, 2016). Meanwhile, hundreds of HIV victims die each year, leaving behind viable organs
that could, in theory, be transplanted to save lives (Payne, 2016). A long-standing precedent (and
stigma surrounding those with HIV) impedes many from accepting the idea of HIV-positive
organ transplants, in which surgeons transplant organs from deceased HIV-positive donors into
HIV-positive recipients. Since the 1980s, when the AIDS scare shook the nation and many
considered HIV/AIDS a death sentence, the idea of using HIV-infected organs in organ
transplants seemed preposterous. Modern medicine led to advances in caring for and extending
the lives of HIV/AIDS individuals, making it possible and practical for them to donate and
receive organs from other HIV-positive patients. But the history of infectious disease experts
disavowing HIV-positive organ transplants, as well as the prevalence of misinformation on the
topic, make both the general medical community and the public less willing to accept and benefit
from this medical triumph. The unfortunate result of this trend of disapproval is the unnecessary
loss of even more lives. To amend this problem and better inform the public, the medical
community must form a unified front in understanding and promoting the safety of HIV-positive
Trojan
2
organ transplants, a procedure championed by the federal government and esteemed voices in the
infectious disease medical world.
BP1
To a large degree, much of the existing resistance to HIV-positive organ transplants
derives from the Organ Transplant Amendments Act of 1988, which made illegal organ
transplants from deceased HIV-positive individuals to an HIV-positive recipients. This
legislation was a consequence of fear and futility – fear because of how easily HIV is transmitted
and futility because the majority of HIV-positive individuals did not live long enough to suffer
from the ailments of old age that might typically necessitate organ transplants (Martin, 2016).
But with both the national shortage of organs and modern medicine extending the lives of those
with HIV, infectious disease experts and the federal government collaborated to change policies.
BP2
In November 2013, President Barack Obama signed the HIV Organ Policy Equity
(HOPE) Act, which lifted the ban on HIV-positive organ transplants (Duhaime-Ross, 2016).
Regrettably, the larger medical community and the public remain unaware of the broad
consensus regarding the potential success of HIV-positive organ transplants, and the mass
latency on the issue has stagnated the movement towards this scientifically validated practice. In
the 2 years since the passage of the HOPE Act, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
performed extensive research and developed safety protocols and criteria for HIV-positive organ
transplants (Martin, 2016). In January 2016, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the
organization that manages the entire United States’ organ transplant system, gave Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine approval to perform the first HIV-positive organ transplant in the
United States.
BP3
Nevertheless, concerns still surround the safety and practicality of the procedure, with
many fears inherited from the previous decades of illegality despite a notable lack of support for
Trojan
3
these worries in recent research. Namely, concerns over the risk of superinfection, accidental
organ transplant from an HIV-positive donor to an HIV-negative recipient, and the safety of
transplanting a potentially less viable organ into an already immune-compromised individual
discourage people from supporting the new policy (Tiwari, 2011). Such fears, possibly valid 2
decades ago, have since been deemed minor by physicians and researchers leading the study of
HIV and infectious disease. Fear of an HIV-positive patient developing a superinfection upon
receiving an organ from an HIV-positive donor is a concern of many individuals skeptical of
HIV-positive organ transplants. This worry stems from the existence of multiple strains of HIV.
Superinfection, defined as the acquisition of multiple HIV strains, could result from an
individual with a non-aggressive strain of HIV receiving an organ from a donor with a more
aggressive strain, and it could lead to the recipient’s own illness progressing faster and
developing resistance to a greater assortment of antiretroviral drugs (Tiwari, 2011).
BP4
However, research conducted by Dr. Dorry Segev at Johns Hopkins University and by
UNOS shows that the potential for superinfection is small and thus should not deter this
procedure’s acceptance. UNOS makes certain that organs are properly matched between donor
and recipient to ensure the highest chance of a successful transplant. Organs are already matched
by blood type, height, and weight of the donor and prospective recipient; matching by HIV
progression and strain would simply be an additional parameter. Dr. Segev holds that as long as
the donor and recipient are at a similar stage of disease progression, the probability of developing
a superinfection is slim (Martin, 2016). While no faultless method of preventing superinfection
exists, agreement among the leading voices and organizations in the transplant community
indicate that the matching procedures are sound and the risk is minimal.
Trojan
BP5
4
Despite UNOS’s success with organ delivery and transplant, many fear the possibility of
an organ being transplanted from an HIV-positive donor into an HIV-negative recipient.
However, the likelihood of UNOS making this mistake is minimal, and the success of Hepatitis
C-positive organ transplants supports the organization’s reliability. The risk of spreading
infection between patients is inherent in Hepatitis C and HIV alike, thus Hepatitis C-positive
transplants provide a model for safely conducting organ transplants between HIV-positive
donors and recipients. UNOS’s strict policies regarding transplants ensure that only individuals
who are able to safely accept organs from Hepatitis C-positive donors appear on a list of
potential recipients. Stringent safeguards exist at hospitals to ensure the safety of the recipient.
These safeguards include precise labeling and packaging protocols, in addition to requirements
for surgery teams to hold “timeouts” before beginning operations, during which the team
performs a final check to ensure that they have the correct patient and the correct donor
organ. According to Miller and Boyarsky (2012), doctors have never accidentally transplanted a
Hepatitis C-positive organ into a Hepatitis C-negative patient. Similar safeguards would
guarantee the safety and health of HIV-negative patients, while giving HIV-positive patients
another opportunity at life.
BP6
In addition to the fear of human error is the concern over autoimmune rejection. Organ
transplants are risky procedures due to the human body’s strong immune defenses against
foreign substances. In any organ transplant, doctors place the recipient on antirejection
medications which suppress the immune system, allowing the body to accept the foreign organ.
Dr. Arvind Ravinulata, at the USC Keck School of Medicine, illuminated the fears of many in
explaining that “an ethical dilemma surrounds the practice of HIV-positive organ transplants,
and many doctors remain uncomfortable with performing this procedure. To further weaken the
Trojan
5
immune system of an already immune-compromised individual, and then to give them a
potentially less viable organ, could potentially lead to a more rapid and painful death.” This
skepticism persists despite research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and Johns
Hopkins University, as well as success performing HIV-positive kidney transplants in South
Africa, that supports the claim that this is a safe procedure for individuals in need of transplants.
In a study led by Dr. Emily Blumberg at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers determined
that the 3-year survival rate after an HIV-positive kidney transplant was 70%, compared to 83%
for a normal transplant. For liver transplants, these numbers were 71% and 73.5% (Penn
Medicine, 2015).
BP7
The success achieved by doctors at the Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa
corroborates the findings from the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins University. In
a country with a large population of HIV-positive individuals, it is not feasible to discard all
organs from deceased HIV-positive patients. So far, 29 HIV-positive kidney transplants have
been performed, with an average 5-year survival rate of 74%, compared to 85% for normal
transplants (Duhaime-Ross, 2016). These promising results provide inspiration for doctors and
advocates in the United States who understand the potential that this procedure holds. Dr. Segev
explained that if organs from HIV-positive donors were transplanted into HIV-positive recipients
“it would be the biggest increase in transplantation [in] the last decade” (Martin, 2016). But
unfortunately, as reported by Dr. Ravinulata, many experts in the medical world lack information
regarding HIV-positive organ transplants. Consequently, they perpetuate the antiquated bias
against the procedure, despite strong evidence and support by infectious disease and organ
transplant experts.
Trojan
BP8
6
Currently, HIV-positive individuals needing organ transplants are included in the 120,000
plus waitlist of people requiring life-saving organ donations. Due to the weakened immune
systems and overall worse health of those with HIV, a higher percentage die during this long
wait (Payne, 2016). But with the HOPE Act, HIV-infected patients can now add themselves to a
second registry, one exclusively for HIV-positive patients willing to receive organs from HIVpositive donors (Duhaime-Ross, 2016). With inclusion on both national organ registries and a
larger organ donor pool, the wait time will likely lessen for all patients needing transplants, not
just those with HIV.
CON With human lives at stake, skepticism over the safety of HIV-positive organ transplants is
understandable, especially when, for decades, doctors agreed on the riskiness of the procedure.
Despite research and experience at preeminent medical institutions in the United States and
South Africa that proves many of the current fears unwarranted, the conflicted history of legal,
ethical, and procedural concerns hinders many from accepting the procedure. Further, due to the
inadequate distribution of information and irresponsible stewardship of medical information,
many remain unaware of the discovery. It is the responsibility of experts in the infectious disease
community and knowledgeable policy makers to make this information more accessible. The
larger medical community and the public must understand the process and safety of HIV-positive
organ transplants to allow for the resulting improvement in care of those afflicted with HIV.
Without full endorsement by the medical community and the public, the potential of the HOPE
Act to save lives will be severely diminished.
Trojan
7
Works Cited
Duhaime-Ross, A. (2016, February 10). First US organ transplant from an HIV-positive donor to
take place at Johns Hopkins. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/10/10958444/hiv-organ-transplant-johns-hopkins-firstus
Miller, K., & Boyarsky, B. (2012). Medical and Transplant Information. Retrieved March 16,
2016, from http://hiv2hiv.org/faqs/medical.php#organs
Payne, E. (2016, February 9). Johns Hopkins approved for HIV-positive to HIV-positive organ
transplants. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/health/hivorgan-transplants/
Penn Medicine. (2015, May 14). Giving HOPE: U.S. Has Nearly 400 HIV-Positive Potential
Organ Donors, Penn Study Finds. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2015/05/blumberg/
Segev, D., M.D., Ph.D. (2016, February 21). HIV-Positive Organ Transplants Set To Begin At
Johns Hopkins [Interview by M. Martin]. In All Things Considered. Washington, D.C.:
National Public Radio.
Tiwari, J. (2011, May 2). AIDS/HIV infected Organs for Transplantation — Pros and Cons.
Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://trialx.com/curetalk/2011/05/aids-hiv-infectedorgans-for-transplantation-pros-cons/
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d.). Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from
https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/about-the-optn/
WP1A/B 1
Professor Tomkins
Writing 340: Advanced Writing for Arts and Humanities
Fall 2017
Writing Project 1
(Parts A & B)
Overview & Writing Task
Writing Project 1 requires you to compose two thesis-driven expository essays due at different
points during the semester. In each essay, you will identify and analyze a unique problem to
which you will offer a reasoned solution in the form of an argument. To that end, you will
marshal compelling evidence in support of your argument, craft fully-developed, coherent, and
well-organized paragraphs, and maintain an elegant, readable style.
Please avoid viewing WP1A and B as mere “college essays” (you know, the kind produced
under duress that you can’t wait to forget having written). Rather, you should aim to compose
lasting writing samples of the highest caliber that showcase not only your argumentative,
organizational, and stylistic skills, but also your investment in the topics chosen for the benefit of
future readers, collaborators, employers, and/or graduate school admissions committees.
For both parts of WP1, please respond to the following writing prompt:
Identify a growing phenomenon in your academic major or professional field of interest,
and offer your stance on it in the form of a thoughtful, well-supported argument.
By “growing phenomenon” I mean something that is happening in your field currently:
something recent, new, emerging—something that experts in your field have yet to wrap their
heads fully around, but that has altered the field’s landscape in some important way or appears
poised to do so. Such a phenomenon might come in the form of:
•
•
•
•
A new discovery or series of discoveries enhancing or challenging conventional wisdom
A new practice or way of doing, theorizing, or saying things
A new product or series of products promising to expand or threatening to harm a given
industry
An event or series of events suggesting or revealing a significant shift (for better or
worse) in belief or practice
You may elect to write about any phenomenon you wish, provided it has a) obvious bearing on
your professional future, and b) emerged recently (i.e., within the last five years). Those of you
operating outside the Arts and Humanities will need to seek special permission from me before
proceeding.
WP1A/B 2
1st Requirement: Submit a Rough Draft
Both parts of WP1 require you to compose full-length Rough Drafts. These Drafts will be subject
to rigorous peer review, and assessed by me as Ancillary Assignments. WP1 Rough Drafts are
due immediately before scheduled in-class peer workshops (see calendar below or class syllabus
for dates).
Submission Procedure:
Digital: Navigate to Bb Journal, select the appropriate folder (“WP1-A Rough Draft” or
“WP1-B Rough Draft” depending on the assignment cycle), select “Create Journal
Entry,” paste your proposal into the space provided, select “Post Entry.”
Hardcopy: Submit hardcopies to me on the dates indicated below (and on the class
syllabus).
2nd Requirement: Submit a Final Draft
Final drafts will be assessed using the Writing Program grading rubric, a copy of which is
included in your class syllabus. Graded assignments will be returned as soon as possible.
Submission Procedure:
Digital: Navigate to Bb turnitin, select the appropriate folder (“WP1-A” or “WP1-B”
depending on the assignment cycle), upload your essay, select “Submit.”
Hardcopy: Submit hardcopies to me on the dates indicated below (and on the class
syllabus).
Additional Information
Outside Sources:
Sources used in your essays should be current (as a general rule, no more than ten years
old) and drawn from the most reputable sources in your field. It’s up to you to be aware
of these sources. If you are not—that is, if you don’t know where people in your field
turn to share and gain important information—then you are at a disadvantage. Now’s the
time to gain this knowledge, and to cement it for those of you already informed.
Citations and Documentation:
Always provide in-text citations for outside sources, and please remember to include a
list of Works Cited as a separate page at the end of your essay. You may use either
MLA or APA citation conventions depending on your intended audience and academic
background/training. MLA users may wish to view, for reference purposes, the sample
MLA works cited page found in Bb Content. Alternatively, those of you seeking a
refresher course on either MLA or APA documentation practices should visit Purdue
OWL (owl.english.purdue.edu) for substantial instruction along with numerous helpful
examples.
WP1A/B 3
Formatting Guidelines:
Final submissions of WP1 must adhere to unique formatting requirements designed to
expedite grading. As stated above, you may use either MLA or APA when documenting
sources, but otherwise please follow the formatting conventions shown on the sample
WP1 submission included in this packet.
Calendar & Submission Details
WP1-A
Rough Draft due (digital and HC): 9/6
Final Draft due (digital and HC): 9/18
WP1-B
Rough Draft due (digital and HC): 10/25
Final Draft due (digital and HC): 11/6
WP1-A is worth 15% of your final grade
and, like its counterpart WP1-B, will
ultimately constitute—in revised form—half of
the Final Portfolio that you will submit for
evaluation on the last day of the semester.
WP1-B is worth 20% of your final grade.
Differences between this assignment and WP1A include selecting a new topic to write about
and conducting an interview with someone
who has knowledge of your chosen topic. The
person you interview could be one of your
WP1-A should be no fewer than 1,400 and professors or a practitioner in your field. Make
no more than 1,500 words long (excluding plans in advance with the interviewee (set
your list of Works Cited)
aside 15 minutes, select a suitable location,
etc.), and provide him or her with your
questions (limited in number, nicely phrased
and sequenced) at least one week beforehand.
WP1-B should be no fewer than 1,600 and
no more than 1,700 words long (excluding
your list of Works Cited)
Here are some thoughts to consider as you begin the process of composing WP1-A and B:
“[L]earn to read as a writer, to search for that hidden machinery, which it is the business
of art to conceal and the business of the apprentice to comprehend … Read work that is
less than good, work in progress, to see that machinery more clearly. Learn to read your
own work as if it were that of another. Try to figure out what interests you at the deepest
level … What are you drawn to? What do you avoid? Admit your own mediocrity and
believe in the optimism of revision … [Remember that] few writers get steadily better;
many get unsteadily so.”
Margot Livesey, The Hidden Machinery: Essays on Writing
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades