The Wonderful Blog Which You ve Never Seen

Should euthanasia be legal or not? There are many different views on this topic. The answer is- there is no correct answer, and there are so many different situations and individuals involved that it hard to paint the issue with one big brush!

Arguing against euthanasia, you could say that rather than killing people, increased amounts of money and focus should be concentrated on providing palliative care; this in theory should render euthanasia unnecessary. They argue that life is valuable and some people would “kill” to have that extra year that the person would have survived had they not committed themselves to death. They argue that by legalising euthanasia, society is accepting that it is okay to kill people, and it becomes a socially acceptable thing to happen and devalues human life, furthermore, they fear that it may lead to involuntary euthanasia being introduced in the near future. God fearing people also argue that it is against the will of god, that god should choose when somebody comes into the world and should also be when somebody should die.

The euthanasia enthusiasts argue that people should respect the person in question and therefore if they would like to be assisted in suicide because they cannot do it themselves, then people should respect their views and therefore assist in their death! Should people not have the choice of what to do with their lives, they have the choice of how they live their life, surely they should have a choice on how to end it. Often it appears to be the merciful thing to do, rather than making somebody suffer over a prolonged period of time until the end!

This will always be a deeply controversial topic and be fiercely debated between the religious zealots and the anti-euthanasia campaigners against the euthanasia enthusiasts. I believe that euthanasia should be legalised as long as it is strictly regulated. I believe that it is unnecessary to make people suffer until the end; we should respect their choices and aid them, when they can’t do it themselves! What our governments decide, we shall not know. Let’s only hope they make the correct decision whichever that may be!

Victor Lensora - Owner of the New, Controversial Blog that has been causing a stir with its unusual and often controversial takes on life. It’s a must to read: http://controversial-times.blogspot.com/

Tags: beliefs, cruelty, death, euthanasia, law, life, morality, News, pain, society, suffering, valuesbeliefs, cruelty, death, euthanasia, law, life, morality, News, pain, society, suffering, values

Share This

No Comments »

In October of 2003, the case of 39-year-old Terri Schiavo once again brought into focus the debate over the so-called “right to die.” The Florida woman was temporarily removed from her feeding tube (via a court order received by husband), but was put back on it a few days later when the Florida legislature authorized Governor Jeb Bush to issue a stay. As of this writing, her fate is still being debated in the courts and her case might now be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. But I wonder if the right to die is something we really want? I always shudder a bit when politicians start talking about giving me more rights. Rights have a funny way of morphing into obligations.

In the state where I live, you can legally make a right turn at a red light if there is no sign stating that you can’t. This right is supposedly optional. However, if you’ve sitting at a red light with your turn signal on and five vehicles behind you with horns honking, it doesn’t seem quite so optional. I fear this will be the case with the right to die if it ever becomes law.

Some people just don’t have strong wills and I’m one of them. Many times in my life, someone with a stronger will has coaxed me into doing something I really didn’t want to do. I could never serve on a jury because I wouldn’t be able to maintain my independence. I would just go along to get along, even it meant not expressing what I honestly felt.

Recently, there was a study released which found that many of the people who signed up for the federal do-not-call list regularly bought stuff from telemarketers. The conclusion reached by thy group that did the study was that these people lied when they said they did not want to be called. I see it differently. I think they honestly do not wish to be called by telemarketers. Why then have they been buying from telemarketers? Because they don’t have very strong wills and telemarketers pressure them into buying stuff they do not really want. That’s why they have registered for the do-not-call list.

I believe a similar thing would happen with the right to die.
Many people will say they don’t ever want to be kept alive artificially because that’s the fashionable thing to say and they know that’s what other people want to hear. However, deep down, some of them would like for all means possible to be used to keep them alive. Saying you want to be kept alive artificially is not a popular thing to say. Most people will criticize you for it. Even people who have enough courage to actually say this will often back down when the pressure begins to mount. People will scold them with statements like “you shouldn’t be so selfish”, “why do you want to be such a burden to your relatives and friends?”, or “you’re old, you should be willing to die and make room for the younger people.”

When someone is on life support and is subsequently found to be brain dead, they can be taken off life support without the permission of their family in many states. Even with that being the case, most doctors will still euphemistically tell the family they need to make a “choice.” Of course, in the case of brain death, there is no real choice, since it’s totally different from euthanasia or cutting off life support from someone who is still alive. I wonder, though, if we would have any real choice if we actually got our “right to die.”

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

Tags: ethics, morality, News, societyethics, morality, News, society

Share This

No Comments »

Look at those teeth, all straight and unnaturally bright white. They never fail to flash down from billboards and thirty-second promos on TV. The four people on a news team may vary ethnically, by gender, and education, but they all have great white smiles. “You rise and we’ll shine” boasts one team from a downtown billboard. And they are always smiling.

Why are they smiling? Okay, forget the sports presenter, because sports is about games anyway. Then again, the sports people seem to be most grave when on the air. This could be significant.

But what about the other folks, the co-anchors and weather person? Sure, they get paid well, but look at what they do for a livingthey give us bad news. For example:

“Hi, I’m Perky Bubbles and this is the 6 o’clock news. Thousands died in a catastrophic earthquake in Pakistan. Raging fires consumed 10,000 acres of suburban Los Angeles. Local mother drowns two kids in bathtub, then jumps out tenth floor window. All coming up, next!” And she says it with those pearly whites glaring at us.

Then the stories come.

“Reporting on the Pakistani tragedy is Iam Heere,” says Perky.

“Thanks, Perky,” says a somber-looking male reporter in 1988 Army surplus attire. He rambles on for two minutes, then wraps up with “…and this has been made that much worse by the staggering poverty of just about everyone in this part of the country. Perky?”

A brief look of concern from Perky as she says “Thanks, Iam.” Then a big smile and “We’ll be back after these messages.”

Switch to commercial for (cough) Lexus–the cost of just one Lexus would equal the combined total annual income of at least three of those devastated Pakistani villages. Then back to Perky and the others, and we hear about murders, political corruption, a devastating hurricane (with “humorous” footage of a trailer blowing end-over-end in one shot that is rerun three times), and steroid use in a baseball team.

So I ask again… WHY are they smiling? Switching to another channel:

Rocky (smiling): “Well, Dusty, how about those suicide bombers, huh?”

Dusty (smiling): “Right, Rocky, and reports indicate that casualties included several innocent bystanders.”

Rocky (smiling): “Pentagon sources say that added precautions will now be added to future pro-Saddam demonstrations. Dusty?”

Dusty: (smiling): Thanks Rocky. Coming up next: the number of homeless goes up 12 percent last month; Big Bird stricken with avian flu; and president warns that thousands may die in winter cold as fuel prices skyrocket.” (Really big smile.) “All coming after these words!”

Okay, for anyone over forty, news is now officially entertainment. The “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore” folks are dim images in history. News is no longer about keeping us informed, but about keeping us entertained. As William Paley, founder of CBS, put it decades ago, the job of radio (and television) is to keep the audience listening between commercials. When the book-turned-movie “Network” made its rounds some twenty years ago, We The People were supposed to be shocked by the fictitious “Mao Tse Tung Terrorist Hour,” on which actual acts of violence would be scheduled to meet TV demands. The story’s audiences loved the new show, and ratings soared.

What does the real world offer us now? To start, we have all those cop and home video shows that allow us to vicariously participate in real chases, arrests, gunfights, and the odd killing or two. That led to (ahem) “reality TV,” in which people were subjected to a variety of cruel punishments for the home-viewing thrill of us all. And the ratings soared!

How could the once staid and responsible news media compete with all that “reality?” Pain, death, explosions, and other mayhem were no longer the sole domain of the newsroom. Now anybody could show it as part of family entertainment.

Have we, as a society, become so brainwashed into accepting violence and the darkest episodes of human beings that we see it all as simple entertainment? Is television giving us an endorphin high by showing us unspeakable violence? (In Saudi Arabia, remember, beheadings are greatly attended public events, but they are not televised.) Is this making us less sensitive to the needs of our fellow creatures, human and otherwise? If so, what does that make us? Okay, now, back to the news, already in progress:

Top of the hour, Rocky (smiling): “Record tsunami totally devastates San Francisco and San Diego. Gang of little girls on robbery spree of designer t-shirt shops in Cleveland malls. Dusty?”

Dusty (really big smile): “Scientists discover moon-sized meteor heading towards Earth; the world will end in ten days.” (Looks up, smiling): “All this and more in just a minute.”

This is followed by a commercial for the biggest Ford clearance sale in history. The tag line ends: “Everything must go! Offer ends in ten days!”

Dr. Sprackland can be reached at robertsprackland@comcast.net.

Tags: morality, News, public relations, satire, society, television, violencemorality, News, public relations, satire, society, television, violence

Share This

No Comments »