Meth11

="Meth Science Not Stigma"= Group members: Benny, Bryon, Jordan, Steven

Establishing the Occasion
The occasion is to establish the need to consider different terminology when referring to infants and children who have been exposed to methamphetamines prior to birth, and to examine their damaging effect psychologically and sociologically.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos

 * Ethos -** Author establishes himself as a scientific analyst of the affects of methamphetamines on the the bodies of adults and infants, but also addresses the issue stimatizing labels like "ice baby" and "crack baby". The author establishes himself as credible for analyzing the effects of drugs both biologically and chemically, but we feel that he doesn't have the credibly or knowledge to justify his statements of stigma on the terminology from a sociological perspective.


 * Pathos -** While we feel the author doesn't necessarily have the sociological education to establish his statements in this letter, he never-the-less invokes a response from the reader to really analyze the terminology used to describe children exposed to drugs in-utero, and the damaging effects they may have. Even the use of "crack dependent" over "crack addicted" makes all the difference in how the child's condition may be perceived. This does incite analytical and emotional though into the situation.


 * Logos -** Logic is simple, he cites many articles and studies that back up his claim, regardless of how the reader may feel about his credibility. The statements are logical in reason, evidence well supported for the reader to really agree or disagree with the opinion.

The Argument

 * The Claim -** Terms like "crack baby", "ice baby" and "meth baby" have damaging social effects on the child they're placed upon.
 * Evidence -** As evidence, the author is a medical doctor, and also references several articles and facts to back up his statement.
 * Differentiating Views -** a) Author cites that studies in meth-dependent babies are limited, and that other experts may offer different opinions on the subject. b) Author also cites that media outlets gather evidence from law enforcement records rather than medical expert analysis.

=Rhetorical Analysis= by Benny, Bryon

The Argument

 * The Claim**- The author uses the stigmatized terms “crack baby”, “ice baby”, and “meth baby” to represent some scientific validity that does not really identify the child themselves. On behalf that a child is born by meth parents does not regulate that the baby will be addicted to meth as well. With these terminologies, it has damaging social effects on the child they are placed upon.


 * Evidence**- being of such a high education level about methamphetamines, the author understands the material and the resources to back up his argument. Being a medical doctor, it seems that he himself has studied the effects of methamphetamines on unborn and newborn children well enough, as well as citing studies over the last two decades of the same effects of crack/cocaine, to fight this issue about the stigmatizing terms “ice”, “crack”, and “meth” babies. Also, throughout his argument, he has referred his argument with several articles and facts for his statements from both the media and national media.


 * Differing Views**- The author cites that studies in meth-dependent babies are limited. First, in his argument, he states, “Our experience with almost 20 years of research on the chemically related drug has not identified a recognizable condition, syndrome, or disorder that should be termed “crack baby.” In fact, other experts may offer different opinions as well on his argument. Lastly, the author cites that the media outlets gathered evidence from law enforcement records rather than medical expert analysis to describe the effects on the children based off what they see, not understand.

Overall Effectiveness
Over all, the group is unanimous in believing the scientific theory in this letter. While we don’t necessarily feel the doctor is qualified to comment on the social stigmas and effects of terms like “ice baby,” “crack baby,” or “meth baby,” because he is a medical doctor and not a sociologist or a psychologist, he never-the-less has numerous articles and other pieces of evidence to support his claim.

More so, the articles he references are from highly respected news sources like the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times. These are of course reputable sources that don’t publish information unless the highly qualified journalists and editors know there is legitimate concrete evidence for a claim such as this one. In addition, the author also relinquishes that there are opposing views, and that on the specific theory of “meth baby,” there are limited studies and evidence of its effects. This presents a side of vulnerability towards defeat of his theory, which in turn also presents the effect that he is confident in his research.

Finally, while we may question the doctor’s credentials for theorizing social effects, the effect is not in any way dampened: this article makes the reader really analyze the use of the word addicted versus dependent, especially in a child who didn’t make the choice to have these substances enter his/her body. Furthermore, we begin to question the use of all terminology that people commonly use, like “retarded” or racial generalizations like calling anyone who is Latino “Mexican” when it is likely untrue. We really begin to think of how damaging those terms can be when someone unknowingly overhears us using them and the damaging effects they might have.