This paragraph really made me question how we define freedom. Abu-Lughod points out that people’s choices and desires are always shaped by their social and historical backgrounds. It reminds me that no one grows up in isolation, and what looks like "oppression" to one person might actually be meaningful and voluntary to someone else. It made me think and realize that before jumping to judging someone else’s choices, especially across cultures. People should first try to understand the context they live in, before forming any type of opinion about it.

This passage made me think about how hard it is to stay neutral when talking to someone with very different beliefs. The author tries to stay calm but feels the need to speak up against things he sees as harmful. It can be frustrating when logic doesn’t change someone’s mind, but it shows how strong personal beliefs can be. This moment reminds me that sometimes, we have to push back, even if it means creating distance between ourselves and the people we want to understand.

The monopolistic structure of the pharmaceutical industry which is driven by patent laws. Raises questions and concerns about the actual incentives for innovation. Some argue that the industry's focus has shifted towards speculative investments instead of genuine research and development. This goes against the narrative that the patents inherently promote innovation. "Incentive to innovate" and what that means is a question I think we are all trying to answer, and have a definition for. But unfortunately, I think the R&D-driven pharmaceutical industry makes it difficult.

Race is a major factor in the high maternal mortality rates among Black women, regardless of income or education. While money and social status impact maternal deaths for non-Black women, they don’t make much difference for Black women, who face high risks no matter their background. For example, unmarried Black women have similar mortality rates to married ones. Black women are more than three times as likely to die from pregnancy related causes than white women, which shows that these health disparities are deeply rooted in systemic racism within healthcare.

Traditional Chinese medicine isn't always viewed as actual medicine in a way. Since Chinese medicine can work at times when biomedicine does not, skeptics call it a miracle. Instead of calling it medicine or treatment, as they do with scientific medicine. They can be considered "miracles" by people who may have a "death sentence" type of condition, illness, or disease, and the only thing that helps them is Traditional Chinese Medicine. When biomedical medicine can longer do anything, that's when some turn to Chinese Medicine, which arguably seems like people have it backwards. Especially if Chinese Medicine is treating those that Biomedicine could not. It gives you a new perspective on our medicinal treatments and options.

I think this one sentence speaks volumes. As a student at a pre-med and pharmaceutical school, we are taught about these drugs in order to help people, and make them "normal." What we are not going to school for is what can we do to prevent the intervention of drug use. It seems to me that calling it the healthcare system, is only partially true. The other half of it is the sick care system in my eyes. Americans are seen globally as unhealthy, overweight, and lazy, and yet we do not we ask more questions as to why that is? But this one sentence really spoke volumes to me, because of it's true transparency. And I agree to the fullest extent, that Americans are on drugs.

This part talks about how high infant mortality in Brazilian shantytowns influences maternal care. Since death is expected, mothers develop a type of emotional resilience towards it. It shapes how they nurture their children. Infants who were considered as strong ("thrivers" or "keepers") are cared for because they would survive. And infants that are seen as weak ("already wanting to die") are neglected (à míngua) by the mothers. To which we can tie into a later reading of Lordes and Zezinho, pg. 344, "if a baby wants to die, it will die." This isn’t necessarily called cruelty, due to the unfortunate circumstances, but it is considered a type of survival that is caused and created by living in poverty. This challenges the Western idea of universal maternal instincts, and it shows that maternal love is affected by social and economic conditions.

Holism is an interesting idea that highlights how society, biology, history, and language all work together to shape our lives as humans. The four-field approach in anthropology shows this by bringing together different areas to study all aspects of humanity. This way helps experts learn how people live, adjust, and interact in various settings. I think it's interesting how this approach captures a big picture while also focusing on personal events. It makes me think about my own life and how learning someone's past helps me understand why they act the way they do. This makes me question what we might overlook if we only focus on one part of human behavior. Holism helps scientists study people by looking at all the different parts of human behavior together.