Theme And Word Choice In “The Monkey’s Paw” By Jacobs Free Essay

Many have desired a magic stick at least once in their lives, but few understand the luck of it remaining a fiction. The short story The Monkey’s Paw by William Wymark Jacobs tells the reader about an ordinary family granted the possibility to change their life but bitterly regretting it later. Such elements of the story as plot, theme, and word choice have a terrifying effect on readers, making them understand the danger of playing with fate.

The story’s events take a short period of time, which can be divided into two parts. The narration of the first day, filled with calmness, contrasts with further events developing with swiftness. It seems that there are two realities in the story: the light one, which existed before the talisman, and the dark one, which reveals itself when the characters give in to the seduction of it. To show this transition, the writer inserts in the text some hints pointing at the evil nature of the talisman and at the tragic end of the story. During the family’s talk with Morris, the soldier throws the monkey’s paw upon the fire with words: “better let it burn”, trying to prevent the family from using it (Jacobs 5). Later, Herbert, who does not believe in the power of the talisman, sees in the fire a face “so horrible and so simian that he gazed at it in amazement” (Jacobs 7). These moments warn the reader about the disaster expecting the characters but do not explain which one. Thus, the story’s plot keeps everyone in constant tension about what will happen next.

Behind the story about supernatural phenomena, there is a theme of the relationship between a man and fate, which is worth pondering. The writer indicates it with the words of a fakir, who wanted to prove with the monkey’s paw “that fate ruled people’s lives, and that those who interfered with it did so to their sorrow” (Jacobs 4). Apart from fatalism, the story proves there is no point to ask for such things as money or power. That is why Morris advises Mr. White to “wish for something sensible” (Jacobs 5). The whole story is enlightening because it reminds many people unsatisfied with their life that they probably already possess everything they need.

The words chosen by the author amplify the text’s effect on readers. Almost every verb transmitting the characters’ actions is followed by an adverb making it more precise. It can be assumed that the author pays significant attention to details. For instance, the sergeant-major starts speaking about the talisman “hastily” and “offhandedly” (Jacobs 3). These characteristics reveal his desire to avoid this topic because he is afraid of the consequences. The description of the monkey’s paw, which caused so much grief, is also impressive. In the dark, the talisman moves and twists in the hands of Mr. White like a snake. However, the next morning it becomes “the dirty, shrivelled little paw” thrown “with a carelessness which betokened no great belief in its virtues” (Jacobs 7). Thus, the author shows how an innocent trick turns into a disaster.

The short story The Monkey’s Paw by William Wymark Jacobs is an example of a literary work combining a thrilling plot, a theme relevant at all times, and carefully chosen vocabulary. The author immerses readers in the text, letting them guess what will happen next, showing the characters’ emotional state, and leaving everyone with thoughts about their own lives. Not only does the story aim at frightening readers, but it also demonstrates how people can easily be carried away with the desire to deceive their fate and get something with unfair methods.

Work Cited

Jacobs, William Wymark. The Monkey’s Paw. Tale Blazers, 1978.

Transforming Biomedical Informatics And Literacy

The Internet continues to change how patients and health care professionals interact today. The Internet provides health-related information, including generally understandable symptoms, treatment options, and expected outcomes. An example of a medical website that provides patient safety information is MedlinePlus, providing general education for health consumers or a broad audience. The website aims to increase the community’s awareness of health and medicine, promoting health literacy in English and Spanish. The MedlinePlus website can be best evaluated based on sources, authority, funding, reliability, quality, privacy, and disclosure criteria.

The MedlinePlus website is co-sponsored by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The website was created by NLM staff, who collaborated with medical librarians from across the country to keep it up to date with credible medical information. The website adheres to high-quality standards that govern health and medical information. NIH institutions, non-governmental health groups, and federal agencies produce the most evidence-based research (MedlinePlus, 2022). The website’s material is authored entirely by medical professionals, and it benefits from the National Library of Medicine’s high-quality health information. The ability of health librarians and health information technology specialists to collect, organize, and disseminate material to the public is critical to the website’s depth and diversity. As a result, the MedlinePlus website is a reliable source of health information for the general public.

The information on MedlinePlus comes from the world’s most extensive library, the National Library of Medicine of the United States, in partnership with the National Institute of Health. The library is critical in translating biomedical research into practice and advancing public health, health care, and scientific research. It communicates with the community through various media, including user-friendly websites and explicit content (Mo & Denny, 2022). Due to the company’s data sources, the website provides excellent, relevant healthcare information that can be trusted and understood in both English and Spanish. An online medical dictionary, a herbal drug index, and medical news services are available. The website’s sponsors contribute original, evidence-based content that complements the government data found in MedlinePlus. Since professionals write the information on the websites, the authors are specialists (MDs, PhDs, and RNs). The websites provide links to reach the sponsors and the authors efficiently. In terms of authority, the website displays all the relevant materials, including institutional details and authors’ credentials.

The MedlinePlus website services are funded by the NLM and offer various programs to ensure that the public gets credible health data. The congress of the United States directly supports it by funding NLM and the national institute of health. The sponsors are mainly nonprofit organizations. For instance, NLM supports research, public service, and education programs (Miller & Shortliffe,2022). They focus on health advocating for and improving the community’s wellbeing. The website is exempted from tax because it operates under education and science research to help the public. There are no adverts as the pages do not show any commercial advertisements. The link displaying pages with ads does not suggest a marketable influence on health content since the ads are labeled or identified for readers’ understanding. Therefore, the material from the website purely enhances the quality of health for the public and has no promotion since the tax dollars are already paid.

MedlinePlus website provides accurate science-based data that enhance the general public’s health. The website describes the organization, including the mission, structure, governance, and policies, providing accurate health details to the intended audience. It gives a clear statement on the purposes and generally focuses on providing the best to the public. The website is reliable since the health material is peer-reviewed by qualified medical personnel. The current website was updated last on March 10, 2022, and showed links working, providing diverse health-related data such as dieting and various illnesses (MedlinePlus, 2022). The site is free from typing errors and simples mistakes, and information is free from bias and opinion. However, some links do not show reputable resources, lowering the quality or credibility of the website. For these reasons, the quality and validity of data from the website, in general, cannot be questionable.

Furthermore, the site guarantees the privacy of users’ confidential data, given its high protection measures using the hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) that facilitate secure communications. Such enhanced security measures mean that users’ privacy is ensured, minimizing theft of their personal information such as emails. Additionally, MedlinePlus discloses crucial institutional information, highlighting its affiliation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Library of Medicine (MedlinePlus, 2022). Therefore, an evaluation of the MedlinePlus health information website shows a credible and trustworthy website that protects users’ privacy.

In summary, MedlinePlus assists healthcare literacy by adhering to strict policies to link consumers’ health information. The website targets researchers, healthcare professionals, and the public, informing them on health-related issues. Through analysis of the MedlinePlus website, it is evident that it meets source, authority, funding, reliability, quality, privacy, and disclosure evaluation criteria. Therefore, it is a credible source of health information for readers seeking knowledge on health issues.

References

MedlinePlus. (2022).

Miller, R., & Shortliffe, E. (2022). Donald A.B. Lindberg and the U.S. National Library of Medicine Transformed Biomedical and Health Informatics. Transforming Biomedical Informatics and Health Information Access: Don Lindberg and the U.S. National Library of Medicine, 189-200.

Mo, H., & Denny, J. (2022). The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Impact on Precision and Genomic Medicine. Transforming Biomedical Informatics and Health Information Access: Don Lindberg and the U.S. National Library of Medicine, 74-84.

Controversial Issues Of COVID-19

Many people still oppose the coronavirus vaccination; they use different arguments to support their opinions. The greatest doubt among those who do not want to be vaccinated is a lack of confidence in the vaccine’s safety. Some individuals believe that virtually everyone who is vaccinated is, in fact, a test subject. Suspicion is fueled by the requirement to sign a waiver of any claims related to the vaccine effects. People are beginning to suspect that the authorities are simply refusing to take responsibility for a vital matter. The effectiveness of the vaccine is perhaps the second most crucial issue. Various research and health organizations say that those who are vaccinated have a significantly reduced risk of contracting COVID-19 (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2021; Wainwright, 2021). They claim that the disease is much milder and less fatal if they are infected. However, many people have examples from their relatives, co-workers, or even from their own experience, where vaccinated people get just as sick. Besides, the course of the disease was as severe as in unvaccinated people.

Earlier, it was claimed that only unvaccinated people were carriers of the disease, but later, it was recognized that vaccinated people were also carriers and were at risk of infection. For this reason, the authorities of many countries refuse to override current restrictions and return to the previous mode of operation. In addition, unvaccinated people are admitted to hospitals and those who have been given the vaccine are. This fact again leads many to doubt the effectiveness of vaccine testing. Many people are convinced that the government manipulates data through controlled media. They are exacerbating the situation of COVID-19, appealing to data on morbidity and mortality from the coronavirus (Annaka, 2021). However, there is very little information about other diseases and their mortality statistics. At the same time, there are cuts in the healthcare system since, during the pandemic, an extraordinary amount of resources was spent.

Amid controversy about the effectiveness of vaccination, scientists hold the position that it does help protect against coronavirus. However, it does not entirely eliminate the risk of getting sick. Although immunity to the coronavirus weakens for some time after vaccination, protection against the severe course of the disease remains strong. In addition, those who have been vaccinated are 25 times less likely to be hospitalized with severe illness or to die (McCallum, 2021). Because vaccination can significantly reduce the risk of contracting the coronavirus, it also protects against long-term effects associated with COVID-19. Therefore, those who are not vaccinated are more likely to develop these symptoms.

The United States has not yet been able to deal with the aftermath of the pandemic – the country has the highest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The delta strain spreads very rapidly, leading to a dramatic increase in morbidity. Journalists of several periodicals believe that the Trump administration initially sought to shift responsibility for combating the pandemic to state authorities. The media also noted the lack of a unified position among representatives of the current administration on the threat of the further spread of the coronavirus.

COVID-19 has been misunderstood in the U.S. for some time as influenza, making it difficult to detect infection early. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services warned of the potential severity of the pandemic as early as January 18, 2020, but the White House ignored it. From late January until late March, the White House ignored warnings from WHO and continued to act slowly, leading to a rapid pandemic spread across the country. With the most advanced medical system in the world, the United States failed to prevent and control the epidemic early and paid little attention to it, harming the health of the American people. In doing so, the world was unable to use U.S. best practices in prevention, control, and treatment, and the global capacity to deal with the pandemic was severely compromised.

While most countries imposed strict preventive measures during the pandemic, the U.S. maintained a policy of non-intervention. Some basic steps, including mask-wearing, social distancing, and self-isolation, have not become common in American society. The lack of timely isolation measures hastened the pandemic spread across the United States. In addition, the U.S. military overseas broke prevention rules, accelerating the spread of the virus. Although the pandemic continues to rage worldwide, the U.S. refuses to lift sanctions on certain countries for geopolitical reasons. This makes it difficult for these states to access medicine and humanitarian aid, limiting their ability to contain the virus.

At the same time, the U.S. pioneered recombinant virus research and has unrivaled potential in this field. The U.S.’s numerous research centers have also funded and conducted more coronavirus research than was executed in any other country. As part of the fight against COVID-19, innovators at U.S. universities are developing masks that detect and provide protection against the coronavirus. In addition, together with foreign partners, the U.S. is providing international assistance to help rebuild the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic (U.S. Department of State, 2020). These measures taken by U.S. leaders during the pandemic can be considered adequate.

To date, Dexamethasone is the only drug whose efficacy in treating COVID-19 has been recognized by the World Health Organization. This drug belongs to the corticosteroid group; it reduces mortality among ventilator-bound and severely symptomatic patients. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were high hopes for Hydroxychloroquine. However, they were not justified – taking this drug did not improve the condition of COVID-19 patients.

There are ambiguous reports published about many of the drugs used. Some studies prove the efficacy of some of them, while others disprove it. For example, in the treatment of coronavirus, a drug such as Tocilizumab is used to fight inflammation. There is no conclusive evidence yet of its effectiveness against COVID-19. Still, some countries are planning to use Tocilizumab and Sarilumab to treat COVID-19 patients in intensive care in the near future. The lack of WHO approval of many drugs provokes a debate about their safety for human health, so the issue of treating coronavirus remains controversial.

Of note is the fact that Biden’s vaccine mandate reveals a partisan divide in the United States. Democrats are overwhelmingly for it, while most Republicans are against it. This split demonstrates how controversial the issue of compulsory vaccination in the U.S. remains. Many are convinced that the government has no right to impose mandates on the American people and businesses. They believe that because Congress is exempt from vaccination, it is hard to support such a decision. However, this is easily explained by the fact that Biden’s decree applies to the executive branch, while Congress is the legislative branch. Nevertheless, many people believe that the mandate is excessive and infringes on the individual rights of citizens.

References

Annaka S. (2021). Political regime, data transparency, and COVID-19 death cases. SSM – Population Health, 15, 1-7. Web.

McCallum, K. (2021). Can you still get COVID-19 if you’re fully-vaccinated? Houston Methodist. Web.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). CDC COVID-19 study shows mRNA vaccines reduce risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people. Web.

U.S. Department of State. (2020). Foreign assistance for coronavirus (COVID-19). Web.

Wainwright, R. (2021). No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as infectious’ as unvaccinated people if they get COVID. The Conversation. Web.

error: Content is protected !!