In Dr. Vroit’s clinic in Guayaquil, visual reminders of God—the crucifix, the Virgin’s image—are notably scarce, yet prayer is woven into every technical gesture. At each egg‐aspiration procedure, Nancí, the laboratory biologist, pauses her pipettes and centrifuge to petition Christ for a sufficient yield of high‐quality oocytes and a successful outcome (p. 9). Her declaring, “I have Christ in the laboratory,” she evolves the lab bench into a sacred workspace, inviting divine guidance to sharpen her skills and protect the fragile gametes. This engrained, less materially excessive form of Catholicism shows that faith in God’s assistance need not rely on statues or icons; rather, it lives in the practitioners’ hands, their words, and their rituals. In doing so, Nancí’s devotion does more than dispel uncertainty—it reorients the entire scientific endeavor toward a shared moral economy, where lab protocols and prayer become co‑equals in the quest to create life.

This paragraph is interesting as it shows how Western LGBTQ+ could unintentionally set a limit for cultural understanding by forcing non-Western communities into a binary of acceptance or rejection. Massads concept, “incitement to discourse,” is suggesting that if fixed categories such as “gay” or “lesbian” are introduced then movements will become fluid in understanding same-sex desire. Massad claims that instead of creating an open space for diverse sexuality, the Gay International may have narrowed the thought by enforcing the universal identity model. This is compelling because it gets the reader to question whether rights always lead to empowerment or erasure of communities

One of the many revelations in this article that was striking is the Western presumption that Afgan women would have to suddenly remove the burqa once the taliban were defeated. This prediction shows the misconception of cultural landscapes and historical value of veiling. This diminishes it to solely a symbol of oppression and not fully understanding its social and personal significations. The interference that "freedom" compares to accepting Western styles of dress—such as jeans or Chanel suits—reveals an narrow-minded perspective that completely ignores the autonomy of Muslim women in choosing their attire. This makes us reconsider the rhetoric of having to “save” Muslim women as it reinforces Western norms rather than their own culture.

I found this whole interaction interesting and thought-provoking. It shows that just because someone voted for a certain party doesn’t mean they share the same political views completely. Sometimes, just like in this situation, it can be based on emotions and relating to the individual rather than their political views. Growing up, she was treated unfairly, and seeing the media and her neighbors caused her to vote based on her emotions as a way to push back against them. Instead of jumping to conclusions and saying that the other side is misinformed, listening to their reasons first can help us understand their perspective.

This passage highlights the contradictions in the global pharmaceutical industry in India. India’s role as a hub for clinical trials is guided by economic incentives rather than equitable healthcare. In the participating research it was shown that they do not provide affordable access to drugs for all populations. The ethical question : should a population that contributes to medical research be guaranteed access to the medications that result from it? The passage proposes that the clinical research organizations exist to expand business and keep clinical trials. Companies are able to exploit participants that separate research and healthcare. This passage also made me reflect on the nature of informed consent in these trials. If participants join out of financial necessity rather than a true understanding of the risks and benefits, is their consent truly voluntary? The text mentions that many trial participants in India are former factory workers who have been economically displaced. This suggests that poverty itself becomes a risk factor for exploitation in medical research. It would be interesting to explore how regulations could better protect these vulnerable populations.

This stereotype emphasizes a cultural and socioeconomic health stereotype. It suggests that an African person has more health issues than a rich person from Long Island. It also ignores any structural realities, from medical access to environmental circumstances to socioeconomic oppression. In addition, this operates under the false assumption that poor people are uneducated and unhealthy. Still, many educated and healthy people live in these unfortunate situations, and many communities medical professionals should be against such stereotyping.

Many patients start looking into other alternatives to biomedical options, hoping for a “miracle” since the traditional methods didn’t work. This just shows that even though traditional Chinese medicine helps many patients and provides successful treatments regularly, it is still considered a miracle just because biomedical options couldn’t find a cure. In a way, this undermines traditional Chinese medicine's effectiveness. People need to start looking at these types of medicine more often, not only for their effectiveness but also for their affordability. Many people don’t have insurance and can’t afford to spend thousands on prescriptions or hospital bills. Acupuncture and herbs cost way less than some of those things.

Joseph Dumit’s account of the neuroethics meeting raised concerns about the acceptance of lifelong pharmaceutical use. The clinical researcher asserts that taking at least five or more drugs is only the minimum amount we can take in our lifetime. This was back in 2002 so it must’ve gotten worse from there. I don’t think that anyone should be on any medication just because of their age. When did we reach a point where medication is seen as the only alternative we have? This challenges the understanding of health. How come there is less light shed on trying to reverse certain medical diagnoses through food since what we eat provides us with our nutrients and vitamins, or even regular exercise. Shouldn’t the way that this clinical researcher thinks raise some concerns?

Reading back I thought that this part was very interesting and might even provide a slight foreshadowing. Scheper-Hughes reflection on Zezinho’s fate highlights the impact of the early neglect that was suffered. The part where she says, “a death I had tricked once but would be unable to forestall forever?”. Another thing I thought was interesting was that the motherly love that is expected here as soon as you are born was not a thing. The reason for this was there was a high infant mortality rate, and as bad as it sounds, the mothers learned to love only the children who grew up and survived.

This part about participant observation made clear that this access allows anthropologists to experience things that may not occur during an interview. For example, when the weavers in Zinacantán are interviewed and exclaim that weaving isn't as complicated as it seems, the researcher later puts on the tools to weave and tries their hand at it. They quickly realize how painstaking and complicated the act of weaving is, requiring much more intricate attention, allowing them to understand the weaver's position better. I found this fascinating because it shows how fieldwork translates to the learning experience. However, I wonder how the anthropologists presence can alter the way the women express how hard weaving is. For example, It definitely is hard to master and get right, but they just want to show off in front of the anthropologist and downplay how hard it truly is.