Assisted suicide Essay Example for Free

Assisted suicide Essay Assisted Suicide In the 1990s, ‘Doctor Death’ Jack Kevorkian invented the first assisted suicide machine  in the world. He was then thrown into prison for 7 years (Pickert). This caught people’s attention  and made them question whether it should be legal to request physician assisted suicide, which is  when someone asks a physician to help him or her terminate his or her life. This topic became  one of the most popular discussions in recent years, but the truth is that it has actually been a  centuries- old debate. For both logical and humanitarian reasons, assisted suicide is not right and  should not be legalize. Is it right for a nation founded on Christianity to allow citizens to choose assisted  suicide? Can a decision that is made by a mentally ill person be treated as a rational decision? Is  the prevention of pain an acceptable circumstance in which to end a life? People still do not have  a widely accepted answer. It is not clear whether physician assisted suicide  is right or wrong. Assisted suicide should not be viewed solely as affecting one life, but should be viewed as a  decision that affects many.  The declaration of independence states that everyone has the right to pursue happiness  In whatever way they choose. Many argue that a decision to kill oneself is a private choice, that  society should not be, and has no right to be concerned. America believes that with its freedom,  people can do almost everything based on their own choices. Physician assisted suicide is also  one of the choices that they can decide. The common argument is that these people are adults  who can make rational and reasonable choices, however many people who request physician  assisted suicide are mentally ill. Of those who attempt suicide but were unsuccessful, less than 4  percent go on to kill themselves in the future, which means that most people changed their mind  after a period of recovery. Psychological evidence shows that those who ask for physician   assisted suicide in order to avoid pain are normally ambivalent, and they  usually attempt to end  their life for other reasons than a settled desire to die. Since assisted suicide has already become  a popular way to end suffering and pain, people who were in the status might feel it is necessary  for them to kill themselves since they have in their mind become a burden to their family and  society. Some would say it is wrong for such an impression to have the power to persuade a  personto end their life due to their weakness and disability. As a Christian nation, America wants a positive and happy image for the country.  American people value the meaning of life, and According to what most of the Christians  believe, God is the one who created life. Then how can people have the right to end something  that they did not even create in the first place? American society does not think assisted suicide  is good as a whole, because assisted suicide is still a self-caused death, which is equal to suicide.  Although there is always a vague line drawn between assisted suicide and attempted  murder. Assisted suicide is the opposite of happiness because it demonstrates  utter depression. It  is clear that American society sees assisted suicide as wrong, because there is a suicide watch  team among the police and counselors at schools who are trained to help and avert suicide. Asking for assisted suicide as a form of pain relief and signing a release form is not acceptable  either. People cannot solve problems by trying to get rid of them. People who stand against  physician-assisted suicide believe that suffering is just a stage of life. And lots of people who  were prevented from assisted suicide will tell you that they all passed that stage successfully,  and they are appreciative that they were stopped from asking for physician-assisted suicide. Assisted suicide also hurts the people who care about those who were asking for a  physician assisted suicide. Patients might get relived from their long suffering and pain but their  family will be hurt from one’s immature decision. The person only thought of their own  feelings and never considered others who are around them and how they feel. Families and loved  ones will be upset about their decision to take their lives in a selfish act. Other evidence that  shows assisted suicide is wrong is the fact that there are always suicide prevention billboards in  communities. This should show the government that people do not want those around them to  commit suicide. People who fight for the right to have physician-assisted suicide argue that assisted  suicide can bring benefits to both patients and society. They believe that people who  choose assisted suicide will die with dignity rather than suffer the pain of illness( OSteen,  Burke). That they will not let their family and friends suffer anymore by showing their weakness  and sickness. By choosing assisted suicide, patients can also reduce a huge amount of medical  expenses that insurance does not cover. To benefit society, their organs can be donated to save  people’s lives (Humphrey). Doctors and nurses can spend more time on recovering patients  rather than waste time on patients who are assured death, and of course, they still think it is a part  of one’s freedom to be able to choose for himself whether to live or die. Whether it is one’s  rational decision to chose to end their life has always been the center of this debate. Because  without argu ing about one’s free right, those who favor assisted suicide will lose an important  statement. Although there is a ton of evidence showing that physician assisted suicide is not right,  it is a fact that so many people are still in favor to legalize assisted suicide. They believe that  rather than give people hope to live, telling them the truth and offering them an option is more  reasonable. They argued that in some ways, it is humane to give dying people assisted suicide;  society is okay with people helping a sick or dying animal yet people are not okay with letting a  sick and dying patient go. It was said that humans are too selfish to let their loved ones go, even  if death would be a comfort. People who think it is illegal for a physician to offer assisted suicide  are accused of wanting to control other people’s lives. People think that one has his/her own will  about their life that no one is suppose to tell them what they should do and should not do. Especially when their faith to live is completely gone. It was understood as a merciful behavior  for a physician to offer help to end one’s life. A new statement was also brought up to argue in  the favor of legalize assisted suicide. It is that if one can reject medical treatment to prolong life  then why cant one request treatment to end it? Many people found this statement be reasonable  and useful to support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.  After centuries’ debating, there is still no certain answer for those questions that are  brought up by the topic of assisted suicide. Two sides are still debating about the benefits and  negative effects of assisted suicide. Still to this day no one is able to convince the either group to  change their views on this topic. In 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that legalizing assisted  suicide is to be the responsibility of each state respectively. No one can yet predict how long this  topic wi ll still be an argumentative topic for debate, And no one can predict how this issue will  effect human life in the future. But overall, do people really possess the right to kill a life that  was not created by them? It is still a big question that no one has yet given an answer that can  satisfy everyone. Maybe one-day people will find out the right answer and that assisted suicide  will be a new thing that brings benefits to the world. Physician suicide should be banned due to  its negative cause and impaction to society. People who think assisted suicide should be  illegalized because of the value of life to a society is still the majority; ending a life is  not so simple that people should decide to do so on their own. Work cited Pickert, Kate. A brief history of assisted suicide. a brief history of assisted suicide. N.p., 3 Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Sept. 2013. . Humphry, Derek. Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individuals right to choose to die. Assisted Suicide Information on right-to-die and euthanasia laws and history. N.p., 24 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Sept. 2013. Declaration of Independence Text Transcript. National Archives and Records Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2013. OSteen, David N. , and Burke J. Balch. Why We Should Not Legalize Assisted Suicide | New York State Right to Life. Welcome | New York State Right to Life. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2013. Information on right-to-die and euthanasia laws and history. N.p., 24 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Sept.2013. .

Cathy Ames as the Devil in John Steinbecks East of Eden Essay

Cathy Ames as the Devil  in East of Eden    East of Eden was a novel that explored the roots of evil in its most primal form. Through intricate plot lines and complex characters, John Steinbeck weaved a tale of brutality, cruelty, and isolation. One important character that helped to illustrate the presence of evil throughout the book was Cathy Ames, an intelligent woman who ruthlessly used other people to serve her own needs. When reflecting upon East of Eden, a debate that often surfaces is whether Cathy's evil was a result of nature or nurture. Arguments for and against both sides are in the book. At some times, Cathy is portrayed as a wicked fiend who's aggression stems from nowhere but her own empty heart. Other times, Cathy appears weak and afraid of people who aren't the least bit intimidating. Those are the moments in the book where one must question whether Cathy is truly evil, or just an impatient and self-centered individual.    Cathy's upbringing did not seem to be a likely place to foster dissent and animosity in the young girl. Her pa...

Invictus Essay

Invictus a movie that touches on a lot of issues Nelson Mandela and the South African people faced as a nation. Nelson Mandela was faced with bringing a nation separated due to racial segregation and he accomplished this goal by helping the South African rugby team win the world cup. This movie can be closely related with our class because Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest leaders of all time and too see how he implemented his leadership to help the Rugby is just a fragment to what he actually accomplished. Throughout this movie you can go think about what we learned in class its goes hand and hand. To give a complete analysis to this movie from the prospective of Nelson Mandela being a leader in the sports world in this essay I will explain the different styles of leadership Nelson Mandela implemented, group dynamics, communication, managing difficulties, issues of diversity. All of these where present in this movie and a direct correlation to how Nelson Mandela was a leader in sports. In this movie Nelson Mandela wasn’t the only called upon to be a leader in sports South African rugby Captain Francois Pienaar also played a major role a leading his rugby team through a very difficult season to becoming a great team and family. Without the help of Francois Pienaar I don’t feel as if Nelson Mandela’s plan to unite the nation would have went so smooth. Throughout the movie Nelson Mandela used a couple of different styles of leadership, this shows to be a great leader you have to mix and match different leadership styles. In Mandela’s case being the president of South Africa in the mist of segregation you have to appeal and lead many different types of people, some of the groups don’t respond like the others forcing him to differ from his nitch of democratic leadership. To reach the different kinds of groups he realized he would have to be stern sometimes and be more of a autocratic leader. Nelson Mandela being a South African native faced a very hard decision when he walked into a rally by some of the black population who were against the name of the rugby team and felt very strongly about changing it. Mandela being the leader he was realized the Springbok name was sacred to the Africana (white population) and to bring the nation together the name had to stay. After this decision was clear to  Mandela to keep the Sp ringbok name based off the knowledge he gained while being incarcerated he knew that he was a minority and it would be tuff to get voted. Thus he implemented autocratic leadership style walked into the rally gave them all the background information on the name then told his follower the name will stay. Mandela knew what he was doing would be good in the long run but still asked for the support of his followers and of the rally he had one person that was on his side. Throughout the movie he also was forced to inhibit the Laissez-Faire leadership style against his own will. Bringing a nation together can sometimes become overwhelming and with his strenuous schedule Mandela overworked himself to the point he blacked out. After his accident he was forced to relax and take a back seat for a couple of days. For the period of his recovery he was helpless and had to go with the flow being forced into the laissez-faire leadership style. Nelson Mandela middle name should be democratic, that is how strongly he embraces this leadership style. He just wanted everyone in South Africa to be equal and get along, while trying to accomplish this he took different ideas from co-workers and people of South Africa. A recurring theme in the movie is Nelson Mandela’s wise words to his followers and friends at the most opportune times bringing encouragement, support, wisdom and comfortably. In the beginning of the movie he steps into his presidential chambers where all of the workers were at and began to give them a speech, most of these workers were Africana’s from the previous South African president. Now here comes this black political guy fresh from jail into the presidents office, so most of these workers didn’t plan on staying and didn’t believe in Mandela. He gives them a speech with great compassion and knowledge treated all of them as equals and ends the speech with â€Å" if you guys stay you would be doing me and your country a great service†. Mandela gave all his workers the opportunity to leave but after his great speech he didn’t lose not one worker, this give you and example how strong and powerful his words could be. Communication in my eyes is 10 percent verbal and 90 percent non-verbal, a person can say all the right things but if they don’t give eye contact and have bad body language it can automatically negate everything they just said. Africana’s were really hard on Mandela but he continuously gave them reasons to love and respect him,  when he went to the first Springbok game a fan throw a can at Mandela that barley missed him but he didn’t even flinch. That fan wanted nothing more than for Mandela to react and get out of character but Mandela just ignored it showing them his mental strength. Its easy for a person to react by it takes a real leader to preserve them selves and ignore ignorance. Nelson Mandela was forced to manage difficulties through the whole movie trying to evolve his nation to bring blacks and whites together, enlighten people including his own daughter and help the Springbok win the world cup. What I learned from Mandela about managing difficulties is that sometimes you don’t have to automatically attack the problem head on and sometimes you should just relax and let things fall into place by making strategic moves. When Mandela knew what was best for the nation he made a group of very smart decisions to bring the rugby team back to relevancy and their winning culture. The best example of this was making the Springboks do clinics in near by villages. By inviting Francois Pienaar to tea he installed these values and coached him up to be a better leader to his team so he can also manage difficulties he was going to be facing. Francois Pienaar was faced with manage this difficult team that was ok with losing and not being connected to the rest of th e South Africans. Pienaar followed in Mandela’s footsteps and introduce the team to new things little by little, such as learning the national anthem, bring them to the prison to see what Mandela and others went through. Invictus in a nutshell is about the issue of diversity in South Africa and how a pride for their national team can unite a country. Mandela was facing the issue of diversity his whole life and even spent a period of his life behind bars to fight for it. From his first day in office as the president he had to face the issue of diversity by having a majority of his office workers being white and not knowing if they where going to stay, but thankfully for his enhanced commination skills he persuaded them to stay. Another character that was forced with great issue of diversity was Chester being the only black player on the Springboks had to be tough on him and his team mates fro example when they did the clinics all the kids flocked to Chester and ignored his teammates. Francois Pienaar was faced with issues of  diversity as well like when he tried to teach the players the national anthem by the were very closed at first due to the complexity of the different languages of the black Sou th Africans. In conclusion Invictus was great movie showcasing the leadership of Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar both in very different situations but faced with some of the same issues. Mandela was faced with bring the nation together and Pienaar was faced with bring the Springboks together that was like a little nation in its own. The rugby team was like a little nation due to different races, conflicting ideas, and stubbornness to change their ways. Every team is like that and to manage that you have to be a leader in recreational settings to bring a team together and be successful. This movie taught me a couple of life lesson that I will inhibit to my everyday life and pass on to other such ass make strategic moves, really think before making any moves. 1 smart decision is better than 2 dumb reactions.

The Effects Of Fracking On The United States - 1650 Words

Life: Twenty Years Later In 2026, life in Dimock, Pennsylvania was a lot different than how it was twenty years ago. This is evident by all the new advances in technology within the two decades. However, what changed the town the most was the hydraulic fracturing boom back in the mid-2000s. The town has experienced many ups and downs because of all the gas companies coming in to extract the natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, that lies underneath the land. Dimock had received a lot of attention from the media due to the side-effects of fracking, some families also engaged in long lawsuits against the companies because of these harmful side-effects of fracking. The government finally stepped in and demanded the gas companies to pay for†¦show more content†¦It was already hard enough to earn money through farming, but the whole problem with the gas companies made it even worse. With, agriculture is no longer a feasible career for the family, this cause Molly’s brother is look into other options. He later became a chef for a restaurant in town. Her parents, decided to retire instead of changing careers since they already saved up a good amount of money from all those years of hard work, before and after they moved back to Dimock. Molly became a clerk at the local general store, while it does not pay well enough for her to live in luxury, it was enough to get by with paying all the bills. With the money that she earned from signing the lease, Molly and William managed to gather up enough funds to throw a wedding and go on a honeymoon. The wedding was nothing big, it was relatively small with close friends and family attending. They ended up going on a honeymoon to Florida because they managed to find low priced tickets for Miami. The water that was coming out of their facet tasted weird, which they later found out that it was due to the methane and other chemicals that were leaking from fracking. People in the town became ill after drinking the water, so Molly and William thought that if they themselves are scared to drink the water, then they should definitely not allow their kids to