Hey guys...posting again. This was a blog entry I worked on alot a while ago, so I made a few tweaks and wanted to see what you guys thought. I also will respond to a few of the issues you guys addressed in comments...which was awesome, I love getting feedback. Next week I think my blog will actually be a college essay I'm working on, regarding the new NJ Nutrition Policy, which is very aggravating to me.
Here's My Response to what you guys had to say:
AD- That is what is frustrating to me, no one really seems to be adequately addressing the issue of heath care in the 2008 Presidential Debates, it seems like the Iraq war is the major hot button issue. It is definitely something Republicans need to start talking about, because one of Hillary Clinton's main platforms, that is not all that advertised, is a universal health care policy. The Republicans need to start addressing their solutions to the problem.
Emily- Thanks, I actually have yet to see the Michael Moore movie, this actually has just always been an issue that concerns me. Although I do not agree with Mr. Moore I am defiantly interested in viewing the movie. It may seem shocking but I actually do like both sides of an issue :). I am thinking about once in a while watching a political movie, show, or presidential debates and giving a commentary to the media, and that movie would definitely be a candidate.
ARubs- It is always a debate my family has as well. You made a valid point, my blog does not really specify a solution so that every American has health care. I don't really have the answerer, but I definitely know that Socialized Medicine is not it. The best suggestion I could give American politicians know would be to privatize Medicare and Medicaid, so they are no longer government run, but run by actual insurance companies.
Now this blog I realize is extremely controversial and a touchy subject. I am definitely open to contrary opinions and I realize there will be some and I respect that. I just do not feel the need to disregard "touchy" subjects in my blog. Here are my feelings on Euthanasia...
Screw playing house, people want to play God. From all different sides of a political spectrum, we can agree that intentionally killing someone else is wrong. That is why I always am baffled that there is another side to case regarding Euthanasia.
Euthanasia: Euthanasia (from Greek: ευθανασία -'ευ "good", θανατος "death") is the practice of ending the life of an individual or an animal who is suffering from a terminal disease or a chronically painful condition in a painless or minimally painful way either by lethal injection, drug overdose, or by the withdrawal of medical support. *Provided by Wikipedia.com*
Euthanasia is very wrong for these reasons:
1. Euthanasia would become so it’s not just for the terminally ill. While the infamous Euthanasia doctor, Jack Kevorkian spoke he defined terminally ill as “anything that curtails life even for a day.”- In the “Suicide and Life-Threatening” Journal they defined the terms of assisted suicide to be “hopelessly ill.” Which included; terminal illness, severe physical or physiological pain, physical or mental debilitation or any condition of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. Does that mean that any person with suicidal impulses should have a physician help them perform it?- A group called “Not Dead Yet” explains how people with non-terminally ill disabilities feel about Euthanasia in their mission statement:“Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not.”So you read the above, and think now that’s just stupid we would not start killing the disabled. How I wish that were the case, in the article “It Could Happen Here” (http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/itcan.html) American doctors once conducted an experiment that proved you can kill the disabled babies of poor families and get away with it. Their research was funded by the Federal Government. Twenty-four babies with spina bifida lost their lives. The experiment was declared a success. Yes, it can happen here. Where do we draw the line? Does having a disability make your life unbearable? Should a teen suffering through a rough mental stage of life be allowed to commit legal suicide?
2. Euthanasia becomes a means of health care cost containment."...drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don't want the "choice" of assisted suicide..." ... Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.As addressed in my previous article, millions of American’s lack health insurance. With no one around to pick-up the tab, should these people seeking treatment be killed?In Oregon (the only state where Euthanasia is legal), they adopted a “Death with Dignity” legislation. Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as "comfort care" under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. A short while after this they announced they significantly cut back on the policies general health care coverage. Leaving Euthanasia as one of the only options.
3. Euthanasia will become so it’s no longer voluntary.Think of the emotional and physiological pressures of the ill. It could be overpowering for the depressed or dependant. If Euthanasia is considered just as good as receiving care, those who wish to stay alive would feel guilt ridden for the care they are making their families pay for.Read these cases, do you think this is voluntary or non-voluntary?:Case One: There is a 80 year old man in a nursing home. He can barely understand the breakfast menu. The staff gives him a form to consent to kill himself. Is this voluntary or in-voluntary Euthanasia?Case Two: A woman in her twenties is suffering from depression. She goes to a practice, where a doctor “helps” people by killing anyone who asks for it. He does thousands of procedures a year for two hundred dollars each. Should this be legal?You can see how Euthanasia becomes one of those “slippery slopes”.This will turn into the movement that abortion has had. Thirty years ago “pro-choice” advocates stated abortion was for “the health or life of the mother.” Now we have “on-demand” abortion where babies are being killed half born. If we legalize Euthanasia today, where is it going in thirty years from now?
4. Legalizing Euthanasia is a direct violation of the importance of life.Societies religious and non-religious have made Euthanasia a crime. Not only because it’s playing God, but more importantly it’s de-valuing human life.Assisted murder undermines our legal system and an strand of basic morality we have in our society today.In closing I would like to present you a recent case that actually happened:http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/86798.aspYoung 3-year-old Katherine McCarron was murdered, by her mother. It was a “mercy” killing because her daughter was autistic. Many sympathize with the immense burdens of raising an autistic child, and feel that Mrs. McCarron should not be charged with murder.Ask yourself, was Katie’s condition unbearable? Was it unbearable for her mother?Under the definitions for “hopeless condition”, (as stated above) mental illness is provided. Autism is a form of mental illness.Do you want to live in a society where such horrific practices are sympathised with?
Check out these links:http://www.notdeadyet.org/
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/orrpt7.htm
http://www.terrisfight.org/
Non-religious arguments: http://www.starcourse.org/euthanasia.htm
Sources:http://www.notdeadyet.org/http://www.wikipedia.org/
http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"American doctors once conducted an experiment that proved you can kill the disabled babies of poor families and get away with it" Heavens to Betsy how could people allow that?????? This is an incredibly controversail subject...could you imagine yourself in a position where you had to end someone's life with euthenasia? I don't think i could because if the person could not communicate thier feelings and really did not want to die but they already signed the waver...it's scary...people can change thier minds...but if they can't communicate then is it murder? There's just so many risks and I don't think it's right. Did i make any sense there? Erin you could explain this to me in class sometime lol
Euthanasia is a particularly touchy subject in the world today because of social disagreement concerning the implications of this practice. Many would agree that any form of suicide or murder is wrong, but to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their life is a violation of basic human rights. This argument holds water in a religious sense, but individuals who choose assisted suicide have most likely not chosen to believe in an unforgiving God. As this argument mainly pertains to human life in the religious moral sense, it makes little political impact due to the separation of church and state. Many comparisons were drawn between abortion or the murder of very young children with disabilities. This comparison is inherently false due to the fact that these subjects cannot speak for themselves. Instead, their "assisted suicide" is more of a mandated murder. The premise seems too different to compare. I do agree that those who are old, young, or disabled, to the point where they do not understand the decision that they are making, should not be legally allowed to choose assisted suicide. Many other cases, however, involve patients who are more than aware of the implications of their decisions and still choose death. These people generally have extremely valid reasons for their choices including, intolerable and untreatable pain, physical disability, and loss of dignity. Although this government does not support any form of murder or suicide, it could be considered cruel and unusual to force any individual to suffer when they would prefer to die. Let the willing keep their dignity, die with as little pain as possible, and make their own decisions about life. The pursuit of happiness for some may very well be accepting the end and leaving one's family with a goodbye and a smile.
Post a Comment