Anabel Maldonado
Ippolito C Even
Current Event #11
December 11th, 2018
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
Our society constantly discovers new ways that can save thousands of lives: vaccinations, transplants, treatments, etc. Yet, in these past years, we have invented ways that can help “create” lives. Several years ago, a woman received a uterus from a transplant, and was ultimately able to give birth - after more than a year had passed. This was the first time in our history that a woman with a transplanted uterus was able to give birth! These discoveries can help many women that have medical conditions involving their uterus, or were born without one. Although this was a success, this procedure was much more complicated than normal ones. For instance, the doctor wanted to deliver the baby earlier than expected to avoid problems that could arise in the future. In addition, our society has to think about controversy involving transplants. Some may schedule transplants - such as kidneys. However, if a person (who is an organ donor) dies, the topic of which organ to remove first is complicated. Some doctors strongly believe uterus’ should be removed first as they state “he wants to focus on helping more women have a single child rather than on one woman having more than one. For future procedures he hopes to cut down on the time to transplant by removing the uterus before other organs, like the heart and kidneys.” Although it is possible that transplants can not go well, it is worth the effort to try and help a mother
This topic is very impactful for our society. Treatments to save lives are very significant for science. Yet, helping create more lives is, also, VERY important. In fact, I chose this topic because my mother is an Obstetrician Gynecologist and constantly speaks about the women who are unable to have babies because of problems such as these. Discoveries and successes such as these not only give hope to patients such as hers, in addition our society will have a better understanding of pregnancies and uterus’.
In this article, Weinberg succeeds when connecting with her audience, as she personalizes the article. In the beginning she happily introduces the topic by telling the story of a Brazilian women whom had a transplant, yet also ahd birth. In addition, she was successful when finding quotes from scientists and explorers - which impacted the audience tremendously. For instance, “he wants to focus on helping more women have a single child rather than on one woman having more than one.” (O’Neil). On the contrary, Weinberg could improve when presenting her thoughts. She jumped from new ideas to new ideas. She continually was inconsistent when explaining this discovery. In order to improve, she could have first given a background explanation of the transplant then explain the new success: a uterus transplant and childbirth.
Charlotte Cagliostro
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology / Current Event #11
December 13, 2018
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
Anabel Maldonado wrote a great review of Karen Weintraub’s Scientific American Article, “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” In particular, I enjoyed three main aspects of Anabel’s piece. First, I appreciated Anabel’s writing style and sophistication. Throughout her review, Anabel was able to maintain my interest and also inform me in a clear and concise manner. Second, I liked Anabel’s second paragraph. Specifically, I liked how she broke the third-wall and brought herself and her own experiences into her review. It was interesting to hear about why Anabel chose the topic and her close relationship with gynecology since her mother works in the field. Lastly, I liked Anabel’s criticism of Weintraub’s article. She provided a very accurate analysis of the piece she was reviewing.
Although I quite enjoyed reading Anabel’s review, I think she could have improved it in two ways. First, I think Anabel should have included more evidence, data, and quotes in her review as to make it more comprehensive. I thought if Anabel were to have added some direct quotes or figures in her first paragraph, her review would have been even better. Additionally, I believe Anabel could have provided a better summary or synopsis of Weintraub’s article. On occasion, I felt like Anabel was over-simplifying certain concepts, which should have been further elaborated on.
One thing I learned from reading Anabel’s review is that a woman who underwent a uterus transplant was able to give birth just one year after the procedure. I found this to be quite interesting and really put things into perspective for me about how far we have grown as a society and advanced in the scientific world. There truly are no limitations to what scientists can achieve in this day and age.
Szilvia Szabó
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
December 13th, 2018
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
Modern medicine has come so far. In the past few decades alone we have advanced so much in this field. It is so interesting to learn about all of the new progress we’ve made. So, the headline of Anabel’s article, “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby,” immediately caught my eye. Overall, I think that Anabel did a really nice job reiterating the important points and significance of this. I really liked her hook and the way she introduced her topic. “Our society constantly discovers new ways that can save thousands of lives: vaccinations, transplants, treatments, etc. Yet, in these past years, we have invented ways that can help “create” lives.” I think she put a really interesting spin on the topic, as typically in the medical community we want to save as many lives as possible. We don’t think so much about the creation of lives, which I think Anabel showed really nicely in her hook. Additionally, I really liked the personal connection she had to the topic, as she says, “I chose this topic because my mother is an Obstetrician Gynecologist and constantly speaks about the women who are unable to have babies because of problems such as these.” I think that this connection established a level of credibility for Anabel to talk about this topic. Lastly, I really liked how Anabel touched on transplants in general and some controversies revolving around which organs should be harvested first. I think that this is really good context to have. Knowing all sides of the story is really important and I liked that Anabel incorporated this.
Despite Anabel writing a really nice review of this article, there are some areas I believe she can improve. I feel like her writing would have been a bit better if she included more statistical facts. It would have been nice to have some numbers detailing how many women have issues bearing children to get a better understanding of how many lives this could change. Additionally, I felt the quotes she used were kind of weak and didn’t really work that well in conveying important facts or concepts. The quote she used was, “he wants to focus on helping more women have a single child rather than on one woman having more than one. For future procedures he hopes to cut down on the time to transplant by removing the uterus before other organs, like the heart and kidneys.” This quote is kind of wordy making it fit awkwardly in her writing. She also does not really elaborate or fully explain this quote. I felt she used the first part of it more to back up what she was saying. The second part of the quote makes gives me more questions that Anabel does not go on to answer. Are uteruses more important to harvest than hearts or kidneys? Do hearts or kidneys stay viable longer than uteruses?
Overall, I really enjoyed reading about Anabel’s current event. When I first read the title of her article, I was immediately captivated. I had heard about uterus transplants before and about how difficult they can be. Not only is this a huge step forward for women who cannot bear children, but for transgender women too. This could be a huge step towards making it possible for transgender women to have children. This has the potential to change so many lives and I can only hope that we continue to progress.
Anna Normand
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
12 December 2018
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
I really enjoyed reading Anabel’s article about the new procedure of uterine transplants and the subsequent successes that have occurred. One thing I liked about Anabel’s article was her explanation of the pros and cons of this procedure. Though this surgery is amazing and could help create lives, there are also risks which are important and need to be acknowledged objectively. I also liked that she included a discussion of the order of organs to be transplanted, as this was an interesting subtopic within the article she discussed. Finally, I enjoyed how she personalized the topic by talking about her mother’s profession.
One thing I thought Anabel could have done better was talk more about the problems that could arise from this transplant. Though she brought it up briefly, I would like to know more about the possible complications of this surgery and whether it is worth it. I also think she could have talked more about the conditions that would lead to a uterine transplant, including the problems with the uterus that would make the surgery necessary.
Overall, I really enjoyed learning about uterine transplants and their effect on society. With fertility declining and more women having uterine problems, this procedure is a huge medical breakthrough and its success bodes well for the future of childbirth. I am interested to see where this procedure goes and how successful it will be in the future.
Cassidy Mullen
ReplyDeleteIppolito C Even
Current Event #11
December 11th, 2018
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
Anabel did many things well in her article.I like that she chose a new and relevant topic. This is a significant step towards the future of medicine and it is not an overly talked about topic. I was personally very intrigued. I like that he uses an exclamation point in one of the first sentences of her summary because it really catches the reader’s attention. I like how Anabel made it clear that there are still some issues with the procedure which are things to fix in the future. Many times we only like to look at the good side of things.
I was unclear about why the uterus should be removed first to help women have babies when an organ donner dies. I understand that having a child is a wonderful thing, but it is not a necessary component of an individual's life whereas a heart, or liver could be the difference between life and death. Our population is already growing at an incredibly fast rate. Another aspect of Anabel’s review that confused me is the fact that she continued to bring up the idea that doctors want more moms to have one child instead of a few moms having more than one. I don’t understand how some women having a uterus transplant stops other women from having multiple children.
I think that this gave me a hope for the future of medicine. Our society is on the way to curing so many great things. It makes me think about the medical procedures and technology that will be present when I have children. It is comforting to know that something that greatly impacts a person’s life now could be fixed with an simple procedure in the future.
I read Anabel Maldonado’s review of the article “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby” by Karen Weintraub. Anabel’s review is strong in first and foremost in its style and personality; her voice comes through the text very clearly, and her use of a personal anecdote causes her to appear to be very invested and interested in the topic. For instance, she comments, “I chose this topic because my mother is an Obstetrician Gynecologist and constantly speaks about the women who are unable to have babies because of problems such as these.” This personal connection makes the article much more engaging to the reader because they are able to easily empathize with the woman who received the uterus implant using the alternate perspective that Anabel offers in her review. Additionally, Anabel’s summary was very clear and concise, offering the appropriate amount of detail without being either too wordy or too vague. Anabel incorporates a good number of quotes in her summary as well- enough to provide sufficient evidence for her claims without losing her own voice. She states, “Some doctors strongly believe uterus’ should be removed first as they state ‘he wants to focus on helping more women have a single child rather than on one woman having more than one.’” Lastly, Anabel’s analysis of the article’s strengths and critique of its weaknesses was on point; she accurately pinpoints the strengths of the article and uses evidence from the original text to support her claim. She opines, “In addition, she was successful when finding quotes from scientists... For instance, “he wants to focus on helping more women have a single child rather than on one woman having more than one.” Her in-depth description of the article’s strengths and shortcomings is persuasive and makes her appear more reliable as an author.
ReplyDeleteDespite its strengths, Anabel’s article has some room for improvement. For instance, her discussion of the discovery’s implications on the world appears to be very rushed and does not go into much detail at all concerning how magnanimous this finding could be for women worldwide. She states with conviction that “helping create more lives is, also, VERY important” but does not go on to explain exactly what she believes is significant about “creating” lives. There are other areas where she could have clarified her point and made her review stronger overall. To improve on her statement, she should elaborate a bit more on what aspects of the article that stood out to her as especially significant about this article. Including a few quotes and integrating them into her review would also be helpful in giving each reader a broader picture of the entire article and her opinion as a whole. Anabel’s review is also lacking in the grammar area. She is missing a few conjunctions here and there, and some commas are either misplaced or used too often. She also used a number of run-on sentences. This could be easily fixed through more thorough proofreading and revising.
Personally, I found Anabel’s review and corresponding article to be intriguing; the implications of such a revolutionary technique could be critical in helping women who are infertile or who have uterine diseases to give birth. It is incredible to think that this new technology could be used to vastly improve such a prominent women’s health issue. I am also curious to see how much a transplant like this would cost, and whether or not it will be accessible to people of all different socioeconomic statuses. I chose to read this article because I find this uterus transplant idea to be significant to both the improvement of women’s lives and the advancement of science and biology as a whole. In a way, this will change my life in that it will open up more options for me and many other women who may experience issues with childbirth in the future.
Alisa Kanganis
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
December 18, 2018
Current Event 12
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.”
Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
I really enjoyed reading Anabel’s review of “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby” by Karen Weintraub. I like how she mentioned that some doctors want to remove the uterus before other major organs, such as the heart and kidneys, in organ donors. I found this very interesting, because it seems unlikely. I also like how Anabel made a personal connection to the topic by mentioning that her mother is an OBGYN, and that her mother has told her stories about her patients that cannot give birth. Lastly, I enjoyed how Anabel mentioned that the author succeeded in connecting with her audience by happily introducing the topic and including quotes from scientists.
As for areas of improvement, there are two that really stand out to me. I think it would add to Anabel’s review if she included more information on how impactful uterus transplants are. She stated that organ donations are typically to save lives, but these transplants are to create lives. I think she could have elaborated on the significance of this. I also think it would have been interesting if he added some more background information as to how exactly organ donations work and how successful uterus transplants have been. I would like to know how popular this method is among women who cannot give birth naturally.
Personally, I found this review to be very interesting. I had no prior knowledge about this topic, so it was enlightening to learn about. I had never considered that transplants could be repurposed to create lives. Since my Aunt is an OBGYN, like Anabel’s mom, I would like to know what she thinks about uterus transplants.
Layla Brinster
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
12/18/18
Current Event 12 Comment
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
After reading Anabel’s review of Karen Weintraub’s “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby,” I thought that she did a nice job of highlighting the effects of uterine transplants, emphasizing the future research surrounding uterine transplants, and explaining the background of said transplant. Anabel incorporated many facts and quotes from the article that explained how a uterine transplant occurs, what happens, and its success rate. From the article, one can gather that they are not extremely successful and are very rare, which Anabel talked about. Furthermore, she also included the future for uterine transplants. Doctors and researchers hope to scale the successful transplants to more women and focus on taking out the uterus after the baby is delivered, which I found interesting. She did a nice job of incorporating the operation and its effects on society. I also appreciated the personal connection as to why she chose this article and her opinion she made with the topic.
Two areas where Anabel could improve upon is an evaluation of the author’s (Karen Weintraub) success and style and explaining the operations more. Anabel did include a few operations, but it was lacking. I believe she could have delved further into the Brazillian and Swedish women, it would have made her review more substantial. Furthermore, I disagree with Anabel and her opinion on Weintraub. I think Weintraub’s writing flowed very well and she connected her topics nicely. I don’t think she jumped around but, she could have explained how the transplant works/ where the surgeons place the uterus/ how they attach it.
This article has opened my eyes to how much medicine is developing. Years ago, we never would have dreamed of conducting a uterine transplant, it was so far-fetched, but medicine is constantly advancing. I think that this article was extremely interesting and I would like to learn more about it because I am interested in surgery and medicine. A uterine transplant is an extremely new and innovative surgery and can serve as hope for women who do not have a uterus. This type of transplant can provide women with a baby, something they never would’ve dreamed of having.
Caitlin Mooney
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 12
AP Bio
12/19/18
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
For this week’s current event, I read my classmate, Anabel’s review of “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” by Karen Weintraub. This article describes new advancements in uterine transplants and their successes. One thing I think Anabel did well was that she cited quotes in her review. I thought this was good because her use of quotes helps the reader understand the topic further. Another positive aspect of this review was how she was able to summarize the article in a way that allowed the reader to understand such a complex topic. Anabel was able to do this by using a sophisticated tone while keeping her ideas clear. Finally, I thought Anabel did a great job with her critique of the author. I liked how Anabel was able to critique the author considerately.
Although I thought Anabel did a great job overall, I think she still has room for improvement. One thing Anabel could improve upon is that she could add more quotes or statistics. Not only would this help the reader understand the study better but it would add weight to her words. Another aspect of her review I think Anabel could have improved upon is that she could have emphasized more on the importance of her study, and what the results of the study indicate for society.
When I first saw this review I was surprised to hear about how science has advanced so much in uterine transplants. While the topic described in this current event might not be as pressing as some other topics being reviewed, I found this very interesting, and I hope to learn more about developments in this subject area. This article has also helped me understand how diverse scientific studies are and how it has endless possibilities.
Weintraub, Karen. “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby.” Scientific American, 5 Dec. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-successful-uterus-transplant-from-deceased-donor-leads-to-healthy-baby/.
ReplyDeleteIn Anabel Maldonado’s 2019 review of the article, “First Successful Uterus Transplant from Deceased Donor Leads to Healthy Baby,” from December of 2018, she explores a new way of saving lives. Ultimately, Maldonado provides a very informative, interesting, and comprehensive summary of the article, as well as an analysis of the facts and data presented. Although her entire article is well written, there are three main strengths that are most prominent. Maldonado’s most obvious strength is made apparent in her summary and context of the article. Because she is covering the moderately complicated concept of transplants, Maldonado makes sure to explain everything in detail and present her information in an easy to understand order. Her review is first opened with the story of a women who received a uterus transplant. As stated, “Several years ago, a woman received a uterus from a transplant, and was ultimately able to give birth - after more than a year had passed.” She explains this phenomenon in a simple construction that is easy to understand. She then continues to report that this was the first time in history that a woman with a transplanted uterus was able to give birth. As the article proceeds, another strength of Maldonado’s review becomes apparent. This strength lies in her description of the implications that existed within this surgery and birth. She states, “However, if a a person (who is an organ donor) dies, the topic of which organ to remove first is complicated. Some doctors strongly believe uterus’ should be removed first as they state “he wants to focus on helping more women have a single child rather than on one woman having more than one. For future procedures he hopes to cut down on the time to transplant by removing the uterus before other organs, like the heart and kidneys.” These aspects make the surgery more complicated than most implant surgeries. Maldonado’s final strength is in her second paragraph. In this paragraph, she connects this topic to modern day society. She connects this story with the importance of the fact that it helps both save lives and create new ones. Her connections to modern day society help convey the article’s monumental importance to the world.
Although Maldonado’s writing is very strong, there is always room for improvement. First, Maldonado should have included more direct quotations to support her claims. In the entirety of her review, she only uses two direct quotes from the original article. Therefore, for most of her review, she is making baseless claims. These claims unfortunately have no credibility, because there is a lack of evidence. If she had added more direct data and quotation, the article would be easier to read and understand. To improve upon this issue, Maldonado simply must gather notable quotes from her original source and integrate them into her writing. Additionally, Maldonado’s review would have been stronger if she had included why the article was well written and engaging. To improve in this area, she should just write with more specifics. Although there are some flaws, her review is strong.
Ultimately, Anabel Maldonado’s review educated me on the first successful birth resulting from a
uterus transplant. Prior to reading this article, I believed that uterus transplants and births from such were not possible. Reading the article, I was amazed to learn that this has happened before. I chose to read this article because I felt that I needed a change from COVID-19 news. I do not typically read medical based articles, concerning surgeries etc, but I wanted to step out of my comfort zone. With the new knowledge that I have gathered, I feel confident in discussing these issues with my peers. I am happy that I chose to read this writing and I am impressed with Maldonado’s level of skill.