Within the field of biopsychology many researchers dedicate themselves to the task studying the brain and the multitude of neurochemicals, brain structures, hemispheres, and communication pathways among different brain regions. Their work contributes to our evolving understanding of the role the brain plays in behavior, cognition, and emotions.
For this week’s discussion we will employ our analytical skills to evaluate four case studies. Through our evaluation of the case studies, we will apply our knowledge of the nervous system, brain structures, and events that can disrupt healthy functioning.
Part 1: Case Reviews: Review the four case studies provided below. Answer four of the presented questions following each case study. You will need your answers for your main post and your peer follow-ups.
Part 2: Main Post: In order to create a focused community of learning this week we will conduct an analyses exchange. This will be achieved as follows:
According to the first letter of your last name, you have been assigned a case study to analyze and address for your main post this week. Once you’ve identified your assigned case study, carefully compose your responses to four of the assigned questions.
Last Name Ending in…
Maine Post Study
Peer Follow-Up Studies (pick 2)
Study 1: Bill
Studies 2, 3, 4
Study 2: Jill
Studies 1, 3, 4
Study 3: Jarrod
Studies 1, 2, 4
Study 4: John
Studies 1, 2, 3
Part 3: Peer follow-up: Respond to two of your classmates’ postings, selecting two who were assigned a different case study from your own. Provide constructive, thoughtful feedback designed to build an engaging dialog. To achieve this, comment on your classmate’s post AND share your answers to an assigned question not addressed in your classmate’s main post. This will contribute to a broader analysis of the case study.
Study 1: Bill (Drugs for good gone wrong…)
Your roommate Bill has had chronic pain issues since he broke his jaw in a mountain biking accident about a year ago. You know that he finished his prescription pain killers four months ago, but you’re concerned he’s been taking something else. Quite frequently you find Bill passed out in his room, and when he is awake, he doesn’t seem to care about much. He stopped volunteering at the animal shelter and says his pain is way better than it was a few months ago. Today you find on the bathroom sink a syringe and your landlord sends an email to say Bill did not pay his share of this month’s rent. What drug is Bill on?
Questions: Answer question 6. Choose at least 3 additional questions to discuss.
- What drug has the individual in this case been using? What led you to believe this?
- What are the subjective effects of the drug (i.e., what would a person taking this drug report feeling after using the drug)?
- What receptors, transporters, or neurotransmitters could be involved? How does the drug affect these receptors, transporters, or neurotransmitters?
- Provide at least one relevant website concerning the drug in question.
- Is this drug addictive? What are the consequences of continued use of this drug?
- Putting yourself in the role of a professional counselor or biological psychologist, what advice do you have for concerned family or friends of someone using this drug?
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).>GET ANSWER