Writing an Opinion Column

by: Anastasia Basuki (@bonananastasia) – January 22nd, 2018

My current aim is to produce an opinion column on the non-disclosed ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry as my first persuasive writing piece. The "behind the scenes" of the medical field has always piqued my curiosity – what goes on behind those closed hospital doors, that aren't shown to the public? In particular, the controversial connections that many doctors and medical establishments are revealed to have nurtured with the for-profit pharmaceutical industry. The most recent, blown-up news concerning the revelation of said ties involves Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, specifically speaking, its top physicans and esteemed board members.

Nudging the topic aside, I've chosen to base the writing style of my piece on Dr. Dhruv Kullar's opinion column, titled, 'A.I Could Worsen Health Disparities'. Dr. Kullar’s writing is, quite evidently, an opinion piece – denoted by the conspicuous publication of the author, the use of first-person singular, along with the more personalized –but not nearly as personalized as reviews– tone and language used throughout. The persuasive intent of the column is delivered through its content, which may be considered rather narrative and expository in nature – such aspects of the piece constitutes Dr. Kullar’s writing style; all three modes of persuasion –ethos, pathos, and logos– has been merged to produce an opinion piece that touches on the reader’s emotions and ethics by proposing prospective implications of A.I technology in healthcare, along with offering readers with details that are based on current scientific and technological feats. Essentially, Dr. Kullar sought to convey his opinion on the matter of recent A.I developments in the medical field through informing readers on said developments and their potential effects on patient care, whilst incorporating his own experiences as a practicing physician who is very much aware of the risks that come with introducing new technology to current health care practices. For instance, Dr. Kullar noted, “In my practice, I’ve often seen how any tool can quickly become a crutch… Medical students struggling to interpret an EKG inevitably peek at the computer-generated output at the top of the sheet.”

Furthermore, throughout the column, Dr. Kullar has brilliantly utilized proposed, thought-provoking inquiries to make the readers question their stance on the matter themselves. Questions akin with, “What happens when we rely on such algorithms to diagnose melanoma on light versus dark skin?” have been included by Dr. Kullar to encourage readers to thoroughly consider the possible outcomes of integrating A.I in medical care, be it positive or negative – advantageous or detrimental. Such components of Dr. Kullar’s writing is integral in not only providing readers with prompts to reasonably contemplate the issue themselves, but also building and sustaining an author-reader connection, allowing readers to glimpse into the author’s thought processes and reasoning.

It is due to the grounds stated above, that I wish to emulate Dr. Kullar’s level of persuasive writing.

Kudos to you, Dr. Kullar. Kudos to you.

Review: Reviewing a Review of a Book on "How to Live and Die"

by: Anastasia Basuki (@bonananastasia) – January 22nd, 2018

For anyone interested in living, this book is mandatory reading.

Although I have yet to read When Breath Becomes Air –a non-fiction autobiography penned by Paul Kalanithi–, Paul D'Alton of The Irish Times had successfully written a compelling review that managed to pique my interests. The book review, titled, 'When Breath Becomes Air review: A neurosurgeon’s story of terminal illness' was published on January 21st, 2017, and contains much praise for Kalanithi's work. D’Alton began his review by referring to the colloquialism, "Every writer is simply unpacking their own bag." and equating with it, the sentimentality within Kalanithi's presence in When Breath Becomes Air. D’Alton then follows with a rather lengthy summary of the storyline, which is then closed by his opinion and final thoughts on the piece. The review is set on a positive note, and D’Alton’s partiality for the book is evident throughout his evaluation.

Structure-wise, the review is published in a rather conventional layout, leading off with a title that has the name of the book being reviewed, but does not, in fact, indicate the author’s opinion. This is implied later in the subheading located directly beneath the title, which reads, “Paul Kalanithi’s powerful and heartbreaking book is about coming to terms with a future that is not going to happen.” – note the use of words such as, ‘powerful’ and ‘heartbreaking’. Subsequently, a fitting image of the late Paul Kalanithi himself in surgical garbs, is included. The byline precedes the opening or hook, containing an allusion and a thought-provoking line towards the end of the first paragraph that specifically refers back to said allusion. Paragraphs two and three mainly discussed the general information behind When Breath Becomes Air, such as its author and the main driving purpose or meaning within the story. The remaining paragraphs (excluding the closing paragraph) is focused primarily on thoroughly analyzing the novel and is literary features, all the while showing a great application of technical language on D’Alton’s part. To illustrate, literature-related terms, ‘reading’, ‘narrative’, and even ‘book’ are amongst many of the technical terminology D’Alton utilizes. These seemingly trivial things indicate the type of material the review is centered on, and also exhibit the author’s knowledge on it. The closing paragraph is self-explanatory in nature – it simply encapsulates the author’s solid opinion on the reviewed-material, and in doing so, insinuate whether or not the material is worth the readers’ first hand experience. Specifically speaking, D’Alton’s review is wrapped up with a conclusion revolving around his overwhelming fondness of When Breath Becomes Air. His “read-worthiness” suggestion, however, had already been stated in a previous paragraph –and with a touch of dark humor– as, “For anyone interested in living, this book is mandatory reading.”

Comparing the structure of a review to an opinion column and editorial, it’s fair to say that reviews can be a more lengthy read – frankly, it depends on the critic and how thorough they intend their evaluation to be. The cessation of a review is similar to that of a column – both typically end with the author’s opinion, whereas editorials establish the authors’ stance early on, in the first few paragraphs. Language-wise, reviews are written in the first-person plural point of view, referring to not only the critic themselves but the audience/consumers of the reviewed-item in general – akin to editorials and unlike a column, which is usually written in the first-person singular, rerferring exclusively to the author.

Which brings us to the next point: the literary devices and components in a review, particularly D’Alton’s review of When Breath Becomes Air. A conspicuous literary device frequently utilized by D’Alton is allusion. The use of allusions in the review provides an aspect of critic-reader interaction through prompting readers to make their own connections based on the stimuli provided by the critic, whilst also allowing the critic to establish a technical ground. In D’Alton’s case, various different, known literary figures are mentioned, whether it is to compare Kalanithi’s work, or simply to identify with. For instance, D’Alton mentions John Updike in, "John Updike said that every writer is simply unpacking their own bag, describing writing as a way to come to terms with one’s current and historical life experience,". Updike was a considerably well-known novelist, poet, and literary critic – all of these things were not mentioned however, as D'Alton simply expected his readers to be aware of these details and credentials, which is the reason why the said extract can be considered an allusion. D'Alton exercised a similar form of allusion as he writes, "It is eventually Samuel Beckett’s seven-word antiphon that provides what he needs: 'I can’t go on. I’ll go on'", where he mentions yet another prominent novelist, poet, and playwright Samual Beckett. Additional allusions can be found as D'Alton mentions poets Sylvia Plath and Robert Lowell –setting their writing styles side by side to Kalanithi's–, along with likening Kalanithi's life-story with that of neurologist and writer, Oliver Wolf Sacks. These allusions are integrated into D'Alton's in-depth analysis on Kalanathi's work; it's fair to say that the abundance of allusions very much coincides with editorials. Other literary devices D'Alton had brought into play includes descriptive language, hyperbole, and diction. An example of descriptive language is when D'Alton goes on to claim, "[Kalanithi's] humanism and authenticity embraces the reader in a way that is both deeply tender and remarkably strong,". Be mindful of the adverbs-adjective pairings, 'deeply tender' and 'remarkably strong', they demonstrate D'Alton's liking and high regard for the autobiography. As for hyperboles and diction, D'Alton mainly uses phrases such as, 'eloquently articulates' and 'with a poignancy' to somewhat "exaggerate" and really, praise Kalanithi's expertise in narrating an account of his life.

Now, I've always been an avid reader, but my preferences generally tend to lean towards fictional works (historical fiction in particular). This is not to say that I'm wholly uninterested in books of the non-fiction genre, though admittedly, I'm slightly more picky with non-fictional works; I've only ever read historical non-fiction, and a limited number of those as well. That being said, I've never really touched autobiographies – and never really considered touching autobiographies. At least, not until D’Alton’s review.

So, was it truly effective in nudging me in the direction of Kalanithi’s When Breath Becomes Air? Go ahead and hazard a not-much-of-a-guess-really guess.

Opinion: Foie Gras & 'Carte Vitale' – The Much Sought-After Marvels of France

by: Anastasia Basuki (@bonananastasia) – January 15th, 2018

One such visitor, on learning I have a “carte vitale,” a social security card, asked, “How did you score that?” as if health insurance was like box seats at a Yankees-Red Sox game.

Following our in-class discussion on distinguishing editorials from opinion columns, I'd recently read an opinion column written by Erica Rex, a science writer and free-lance journalist, on her experience of the French public-healthcare system – and how different said system is, compared to the one in the United States [hereafter referred to as the U.S]. Published on January 2nd, 2019, the column tackles Rex's opinion on the accommodating medical coverage provided by the French government, as she berates the lack of such government-aid in her own motherland. This opinion piece seemed to address the controversial issue lining President Trump's eagerness to repeal public health insurance 'Obamacare', in particular.

Opinion columns are quite unlike editorials, despite both being written pieces with a parallel intent of voicing an opinion, in one way or another. The author's name, listed as part of the byline, is a distinctive trait of opinion columns that can easily be noticed at first glance – editorials do not publicize the writer's identity. Opinion columns also tend to posses a more elusive nature compared to that of an editorial – opinion pieces are often concluded with the opinion, while editorials firmly establish their stance in the first paragraph. These varying degrees of hastiness to "get to the point" can be correlated with the differing lengths of an opinion column and an editorial, as the former leans towards the lengthy and drawn out side –sometimes even woven with a tale of the author's personal experience– whilst the latter is short and concise, directly voicing the writer's stance in the first paragraph, and might I add, in a fairly straightforward manner as well (surprise, surprise); the last paragraph of an editorial is specially reserved for a call to action – a quirk that opinion columns do not have. Language wise, it ought to be noted that, although both opinion columns and editorials utilize the first-person point of view in their writing, columns are written in first person singular –directly referring to the authors themselves– whereas editorials makes use of the first-person plural – the personal pronouns included referred to a group of individuals, commonly society as a whole. Additionally, the style or form of language used greatly differs between the two; opinion columns provide a largely autonomous environment for writers – a freedom for expression and personalization. Meanwhile, editorials are written with added formality, and rarely include personalized content, focusing instead on a shared or 'generalized' view. Another dissimilarity between opinion columns and editorials lays within the usage of allusions throughout the writing. Allusions are, in large, a widespread f of editorials – on the other hand, opinion colums rarely allude to the events they revolve around. This is not to say that opinion columns avoid allusions entirely. In Rex's opinion piece, the on-going dispute surrounding medical coverage of U.S citizens is alluded to as she states, "Too many Americans do not realize how much better off they would be if they felt safer about access to medical care."

Persuasive writing as a whole generally share a similar, ongruent purpose of delivering a fixed opinion to an audience. They also share a major similarity, in the sense that they have little to no limitations on the means in which they are able to manipulate the audience's perspective. For instance, both opinion columns and editorials may choose to play with whichever of the three modes of persuasion that best suit their interests: pathos, ethos, and logos (meaning emotions, ethics, and logic, respectively). In the case of Rex's column, she chooses to emphasize pathos and ethos, bringing about the argument of the U.S government's –supposed– lack of consideration for its own people, which can be seen as she writes (with much denunciation), "Moving to Europe was a choice weighed against other, grimmer options for health care, which included the strong possibility of being bankrupted by cancer treatment and winding up at the mercy of New York State’s welfare system.". This was then followed by a sardonic statement, "In France I can rest assured I will not be refused care for any treatable condition."

Kudos to you, Erica Rex. I've greatly enjoyed reading this piece because of its mocking disposition – for the most part, at least. It has opened my eyes to vastly different public health-care and insurance systems, along with how such things are capable of leaving a profound impact on one's life. I mean, if having to emigrate to Europe in fear of being reduced to destitution by cancer treatment isn't a 'profound impact', then I don't know what is.

P.S (to Erica Rex): Wishing you and your big toe a speedy recovery!

Editorial: The Ethical Implications of Genetic Engineering

by: Anastasia Basuki (@bonananastasia) – January 11th, 2018

If human beings are to take control of evolution, we must learn to take into account both cost and consequence, and to use our new powers responsibly.

The editorial staff at The Guardian had written quite a though-provoking piece on the rise of genetic engineering – one I thoroughly enjoyed reading. It was published on Tuesday, 4th of December, with content that questioned the overall morality of gene editing and our capabality to take responsibility of our actions. The editorial referred to a Chinese scientist who, in November of 2018, claimed to have "produced" the first genetically engineered twins – an endeavor that garnered much criticism from fellow scienties who deemed the act an "unethical human experimentation". These moral and ethical concerns are further emphasized within the editorial I'd read, titled, 'The Guardian view on editing human DNA: a bad idea, and badly executed.'; the authors' opinion on the matter could clearly be seen through the title, having included, "A bad idea, and badly executed.". Quite frankly, it was this debate between scientific development and morality that truly piqued my interests; the editorial made me wonder, how did morals and ethics win over an –arguably– major scientific feat? How did these two things outweigh the world's first gene-edited babies?

Now, analyzing the editorial in terms of structure, language, and literary devices. The piece followed what could be considered the typical editorial structure, with the expected introduction –where the issue is stated–, the body –where the opinion is stressed and a counter-argument is introduced–, and a conclusion which includes a "call to action", which suggests a solution to tackle the issue in discussion. It's worth mentioning that the piece is also unsigned by a specific author/writer – a commont characteristic of editorials. Furthermore, the editorial was written in the first-person point of view, although in the plural sense, meaning that the pronouns used referred to society as a whole. Very few linguistic devices were utilized throughout – allusion remains the most prominent, with almost the entirety of the editorial having been alluding to the genetic engineering breakthrough that occurred a couple of months ago. This can be seen in, "But there is no need for Crispr manipulations to achieve this – what Dr. He attempted was far more ambitious.", where the gene-editing occurrance was alluded to.

The editorial itself was well-written, effectively touching the readers' pathos and ethos, otherwise known as 'emotions' and 'ethics' (logos or 'logic' is exempted, due to the piece being primarily sentiment and ethics-based). It was composed to ensure that readers would have to carefully consider the ethical side of the argument, rather than blindly appraising the event for its –again, arguably– innovative nature. The editorial was especially successful in accentuating the ethical implications of genetic engineering by underlining the manner in which humans are playing "God's hand" and tampering with nature without fully understanding the consequences – and without fully accepting responsibility for such actions.

This brings us to the editorial's tone which is, unsurprisingly, disapproving and firmly reproachful of the direction gene editing is headed towards. With that being said, the call to action included within the conclusion urges those who wish to "take control of evolution", to be mindful of possible repercussions and to act sensibly.

To conclude this, ah, lengthy reading log (I know, I'm sorry), I would like to discuss the impact of said editorial on my own views towards the modern-day advancements of genetic engineering. Personally, I consider myself somewhat of a scientific nerd-slash-geek; I'm very much interested in the growth of biotechnology and, frankly, am quite excited for what the future has in store, in regards to genetic engineering. I am, however, largely aware of the ethical and moral concerns that surround the growing biotech industry – are we doing the right thing by asserting control over the natural process of evolution? The Guardian's editorial staff has effectively made me question my stance once more.