Week 6 Discussion 1: Comparative ReasoningRequired ResourcesRead/review the following resources for this activity:Textbook: Chapter 12Lesson 1, 2Link (library article): The Doctors' Choice is America's Choice": The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953 (Links to an external site.)Link (article): The Opioid Epidemic: It's Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs (Links to an external site.)Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook and noted readings)IntroductionThe medical profession has a muddled and contradictory association with its approach toward the tobacco industry. While the profession now firmly opposes to smoking and vigorously publicizes the serious, even fatal, health hazards associated with smoking, this was not always so. Advertisements for tobacco products, including cigarettes "... became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations" (Wolinsky & Brune, 1994). Physicians and reference to doctors and smoking were once common in tobacco industry advertisements. The story of physicians and promotion of smoking can be found in "The Doctors' Choice Is America's Choice" (Gardner & Brandt, 2006).The role of physicians in the current opioid crisis is now under scrutiny on television (Farmer, 2019) by trade publications (King, 2018), peer-reviewed journals (deShazo, et al, 2018), and by physicians themselves (Hirsch, 2019).Initial Post InstructionsFor the initial post, research the history of the association of doctors with tobacco companies and tobacco advertising. Read about the association of doctors with the opioid crisis. Then, address the following:In what way are the two situations comparable?In what way are they different?Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors in relation to smoking and the tobacco industry morally equivalent to the conduct of doctors in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific.Follow-Up Post InstructionsRespond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.Writing RequirementsMinimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)APA format for in-text citations and list of referencesStudent Sample:Hello Professor and classmates !!!Doctors are a very respectable and knowable part of society, and people trusted their judgment and referrals. Looking at the effects of tobacco use, Physicians, just like the rest of the community, were not immune to nicotine addiction; even knowing that smoking destroyed their body, this did not stop them from doing it. In this way, tobacco companies were able to use the doctor's status to promote business. By providing surveys with skewed questions like, if this brand a better option for people with sensitive or tender throats also asking if it was less irritating than other cigarettes brands, in this way they were able to present to the public statements like (Gardner & Brandt, 2006) "Lucky Strike Cigarettes.....are less irritating to sensitive and tender throats than other cigarettes." (p. 223). The statement itself is true, but they avoid the fact that all smoking types are very harmful to the body generally. Opioid use is another way society has used physicians to get what they want (King, 2018). "pharmaceutical company representatives are salespeople trying to get physicians to prescribe their products." As people do not like to be in pain, they would go to the office and complain about how bad they hurt. The doctor soon got lazy, filling out a prescription time after time for the same problem, so they started making the prescription for a higher dosage amount than needed hoping the patient's prescription would last longer. This did not go as planned for the doctors as patients did not wait longer to come instead of getting the higher prescription filled and fulling opioid addictions even more as there was a more significant amount to share.In what way are the two situations comparable? These two situations are comparable as they are both addictions. Also, comparable because doctors are being used to promote these items, either deceivingly or directly. The sales representatives have either used the doctor's status or used them to dispense the drug instantly. In what way are they different? Opioid use can be controlled by physicians, where doctors may indirectly promote tobacco use, but they do not control it.Apply the concept of moral equivalence. Is the conduct of doctors about smoking and the tobacco industry morality equivalent to doctors' behavior in the opioid crisis? Explain your position and be very specific: Doctors' conduct with the use of tobacco is not equivalent to opioid use as the doctors directly control who gets and how much is distributed. Doctors should take a stand against tobacco use but cannot prevent it; they can actively educate themselves and patients on the effects of overuse and prevent over distribution. Therefore, they have opioid used has a much higher relationship with doctor's conduct. ReferencesGardner, M. N., & Brandt, A. M. (2006). "The doctors" choice is America's choice": the physician in US cigarettes advertisements, 1930-1953. American Journal Of PublicHealth. 96(2), 222-232