ES-201 Post-discussion Euthanasia 4/15/09

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are very complex issues in our society.A lot of individuals may be confused about the difference between the two.The term euthanasia means "good death" in ancient Greek and consists of a physician taking someone's life without causing them pain.This is usually done by giving the patient a lethal injection.Whereas physician-assisted suicide consists of a physician simply giving a patient the right kind and amount of prescription drugs that are needed for painlessly ending their own life.This allows the patient to end their life on their own terms.Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have mainly been looked at from two different angles.Is it an ethical and/or moral way in which to end a human life.And they have also been looked at from a religious perspective.Many Christians have argued against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and some followers of other religions have also taken a stand against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide also.I am against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide here in the U.S. and I would like it to be banned in Oregon (euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in the state of Oregon due to the "Death with Dignitiy Act" some day soon.But there are very good arguments coming from both sides of this complex issue.Some of which I was previously unaware of before our class discussion and my research.Margaret Somerville a Gale Professor of Law and professor in the faculty of medicine at the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law in Montreal, Canada published an argument against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide entitled "The Terminally Ill Should Not Be Allowed to Choose Euthanasia" in which she expresses her thoughts on why euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized.She states that the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide would change our societies' overall view of death.She states that society as a whole views death as a mystery but with the legalization of euthanasia would instead view death as a problem that simply requires a solution through the use of technology.She also mentions that giving all individuals of age the option to end their own life at anytime is just too big of a responsibility.This is because many individuals who are terminally ill or believe they are dying experience feelings of anxiety and fear because they have no control over what's happening.But with the legalization of euthanasia individuals could avoid their fear by controlling how, when, and where they die.She insists that human beings love the idea of control and euthanasia could possibly become an individual's answer to "how can I control my death".This way of thinking could lead to individuals ending their lives prematurely before all possible treatments of their condition have been carried out because they fear the pain, hardship, and hopelessness they may experience in the near future.Patients need to know that their physicians are they to help them and not inflict death.This perception of doctors would change if euthanasia was legalized and create a serious issue of mistrust between patients, society, and physicians.Training current physicians and medical students to administer lethal injections to patients could also result in these individuals taking human life in a routine manner.Of all the individuals who have requested euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide under Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act" since 2005 forty-six percent of those individuals wished to live after receiving the proper care and pain management.This shows that many individuals who may wish to die are actually just in a very vulnerable state in which they are more than likely also depressed and also feeling pain simultaneously possibly leading to impaired judgment.And how a society treats these individuals exhibits that societie's true morals and ethics.Essentially does a society wish to treat and work with terminally ill and/or depressed individuals or send them the message that they are a burden and should simply end their own life.This article came from the opposing viewpoints database.

Contrary to some of the views presented above many individuals choose to present an argument that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be used responsibly by patients and physicians.And that these options would only be utilized in the most extreme situations of sickness, pain, paralysis, and debilitative chronic illnesses and diseases.James D. Torr presents some of these viewpoints in his article entitled "Euthanasia is Ethical" on the opposing viewpoints database.He states that some individuals experiencing chronic illness experience excruciating pain and discomfort but also do not wish to take drugs that leave them weary and incoherent.It is also somewhat unfair to force individuals who at one time were healthy, strong, and totally independent adults to feel like a burden on their family and/or society.They may experience extreme emotional despair through having to all of a sudden depend on other people all of the time.Human beings as mentioned once above love to think they have some form of control over almost every aspect of their lives.Therefore some individuals who are terminally ill may feel as though they have no control over the progression of their illness, disease, debilitation and experience unimaginable amount of fear when thinking about the progression of their condition and the damage it could do.James D. Torr also emphasizes that an individual would have to provide evidence that their life and the pain (emotional and physical) they are experiencing is absolutely intolerable.Explaining that life would only be voluntary ended through euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the most extreme cases when the patient has no hope for a descent life again.Also no one can truly know how much pain a person is in unless they are that person.So the author claims that the decision to end one's life solely rests with that individual in the very end and not with other members of society and/or so-called experts on the subject.Here is one example of a case in which the patient would be granted the right to voluntarily end their life."A mother of seven children, continually exhausted and bedridden at home with a gaping, foul-smelling, open wound in her abdomen, who can no longer eat, and who no longer finds any meaning in her fight against ovarian cancer" (direct quote from James D. Torr).People against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide argue that the lives of all human beings are sacred but this does not take into consideration situations in which an individual's suffering is so great that living seems pointless and extremely unenjoyable.It may be hard to accept euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide as the best option for terminally ill individuals but in the most extreme cases it may be the kindest and most sympathetic response to individuals in extreme pain and/or discomfort.After listening to arguments from both sides on this issue I am thankfully more educated on the subject but still cannot change my original viewpoint.This is due to my religious beliefs in particular and the fact that the idea of euthanasia in general just kind of freaks me out.I guess i'm not exactly the most trustworthy person at all times and I feel like doctors and physicians could have and will continue to abuse this ability to end the lives of individuals.Even though this might occur in only the rarest of cases it has nonetheless already ocurred.With one British doctor being charged for murder for taking the lives of fifteen of his patients against their request while many people speculated that he killed more like one-hundred people instead.I mean who really knows what's going through the mind of a doctor in that position.When they continue to end more and more lives will they get used to it?Will they become desensitized to essentially killing these people?Usually when criminals and serial murderers end life multiple times they simply get used to it making the next time easier than the time before that.Honestly it's hard to really say if Dr.Jack Kevorkian was just a man who wanted to help individuals who were in emotional/physical pain or if maybe he had some sick fascination with killing individuals and attempted to find a way in which he could end life and get away with it.My main reason for being against euthanasia is because of my religious beliefs.I don't think any human being has the right to end their own life.Nor do I think any human being has the right to end the life of another human being because I do not believe our lives necessarily belong to us.Instead my belief that God granted us life leads me to believe that only God should have the right to end life.Here is a link to a website that lists and explains the top ten pros and cons of euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide: http://euthanasia.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000126

ES 201 Pre-discussion Euthanasia 4/7/09

I believe euthanasia is a very dangerous and actually disturbing idea/proposal.I would first off be concerned for individuals who are terminally ill but wish to fight on with their disease or disability but these wishes are unrecognized or confused by a physician so the physician gives the patient a lethal injection anyways.Some physicians and doctors have been prosecuted and tried in certain situations like this.Doctors should never have the power to help someone kill themselves.Also i don't believe that most individuals who wish to die are completely rational in their thoughts and reasoning during their situation.Most of them instead are usually depressed or crying out for help.Instead, these individuals should receive the proper psychiatric treatment and/or hospice care for their special needs.I'm against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide mainly because of my religious beliefs.I'm not saying in any way that i've been a devout Christian and lived by the Bible my whole life but it's just wrong to kill yourself before a natural death or freak accident.I believe everyone has a time to die and people are meant to suffer (similar to Jesus Christ) in this life in order to be accepted into the kingdom of heaven.I say natural death or freak accident because i believe those are both part of God's plan.Whereas murder does not fall into the same category for me because that involves one person taking another person's life.But the problem is that life doesn't belong to them and in my mind neither does their own.An individual's life belongs to God in the very end because he created them therefore it is up to God to destroy them.

ES 201 Post-discussion Bridgewater College Alcohol Policy 4/7/09

After reading the alcohol policies of both Bridgater College and Eastern Mennonite University I realized there were two very noticeable differences.EMU was actually stricter on the consumption and possession of alcohol than Bridgewater seemed to be.Meaning at our school it specifically states that the possession and consumption of alcohol on our campus is against the rules.It also states that if an individual goes off campus to drink as long as he/she does not disturb the peace in any way upon their return to campus then they have done nothing wrong.On the other hand at EMU they specifically state that alcohol consumption and/or possession either on or off campus are both against school rules and policy.The class discussion on alcohol in general only reinforced my belief that alcohol can become very dangerous while in the hands of college students, persons operating motor vehicles, or people operating any type of heavy machinery.


I would have to say from experience that i don't believe most college students are responsible enough to drink while also keeping their composure and behaving in an acceptable manner at all times.I mean college is a tough time academically, emotionally, etc.Therefore you essentially have a lot of individuals packed into a small campus here at Bridgewater who are extremely stressed at certain times, still trying to find out who exactly they are, and who are all very susceptible to peer pressure at any time.On paper alcohol may seem to be the answer to a very stressful situation.Plus the whole idea of college is for young adults to learn and be trained for what they wish to become in the future.I think a lot of students forget that they are the ones that will have to be leaders in the future for our country in all aspects of life.Basically one generation after another has their turn to keep our nation running the way it should.And everyone has a part to play in the process no matter how big or small that part may be it's still a role and it is beneficial for individuals to understand their role in society. The NIAAA is an acronym for the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and this is the link to their website: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/NIAAASponsoredPrograms/underage.htm. Many statistics concerning alcohol abuse in individuals of age, underage drinkers, etc. can be found on this website.

ES 201 Pre-discussion Bridgewater College Alcohol Policy 4/7/09

The alcohol policy here at Bridgewater College makes perfect sense to me because of the schools loose affiliation with the Brethren Church.When I chose to come here I knew that Bridgewater was essentially a Christian college and that it's campus was completely dry.I was okay with this then and i'm fine with it now.I don't understand why people here are always complaining about the alcohol policy when they knew what to expect upon coming here.Which they had to have known about the alcohol policy.I know this because i was a tour guide this summer while working in the admissions office here at Bridgewater and they required all tour guides to explain the alcohol and drug policies here at Bridgewater.There is no rationale whatsoever in an individual's complaint about the alcohol policy here.If they wanted to drink they should have gone somewhere else.There are plenty of private and state schools that my friends go to where they drink heavily whenever and wherever they want to.I'd be guessing off the top of my head but i'm pretty sure there are more wet campuses than dry ones in the state of Virginia as a whole.

ES 201 Post-discussion Marijuana Legilization 4/7/09

After the class discussion on marijuana legilization I began to realize that I had not though about all the dangers the government regulated sell of marijuana had the potential of bringing to the table.When individuals buy a pack of cigarettes in the morning they usually smoke that pack and then return for another.It seems to be an American tradition to everything in excess without ever finding a happy medium.If marijuana was sold legally I do not believe this trend would stop.Therefore even if the amounts of marijuana are regulated that would theoretically be sold legally in the U.S., individuals would still abuse this by purchasing the same amount but multiple times and from separate gas stations, convenience stores, etc.Essentially if you think about it most American teens and individuals in the early twenties drink to get drunk.Similarly most "potheads" that people remember from high school didn't smoke a little bit of weed to just relax them for a test but instead were blazed out of their minds almost every day and subsequently accomplished close to nothing in life at the time.After hearing the facts and understanding that the government could profit from the sale of marijuana and that new jobs would also be created in the industry I began to realize another problem.

How many jobs will people lose or never attempt to apply for because they are stoned all day, everyday?Because everyone knows and has seen that smoking marijuana makes people lazy when it is done in excess.And there is really no exception to the rule.Even though marijuana has not shown to be very harmful to one's body like other well known hard narcotics and drugs it can and is still considered to be a "gateway" drug.Meaning most drug addicts use marijuana as their first drug of choice and eventually move on to drugs that have more profound effects and thrills associated with them.And my final concern would be pertaining to individuals driving around and smoking marijuana, or working at their jobs while their high, or even worse watching or handling children while their high.If someone were to look at deaths related to drunk driving I feel that's enough to keep marijuana illegal in this country.Because we already have one depressant that's killing people on the roads (alcohol) so why add another depressant (marijuana) into the equation.In my opinion that would only increase the rate of deaths due to car-related accidents. Here is a website that lists and explains some of the pros and cons of marijuana legalization: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm.

ES 201 Pre-discussion Marijuana Legilization 4/7/09

I've never felt that marijuana use is wrong ethically or morally. As far as i'm concerned it's totally natural because it does just happen to grow on the Earth naturally just like tobacco. Similar to the discoveries of new plants with amazing medicinal abilities in far away jungles and rain forests I also believe that any type of narcotic that just happens to be totally natural was meant to be found by man. Obviously for some reason God chose to put marijuana on the Earth but as far as what he originally intended us to use it for.Now that's another question.Even though marijuana has been found useful in the medical field in treating certain illnesses and conditions.It is also known to be hard on your lungs along with other unfavorable negative effects on the human body.If tobacco companies are and have been getting extremely wealthy for years now selling us a product that has been proven to kill us then what difference would there be if widescale sale of marijuana occurred?They're both totally natural products with equally bad effects.In actuality marijuana can be used to help people with certain medical conditions whereas cigarette smoking and tobacco use in general has no known benefits that come from use.So honestly as far as I see marijuana has more to offer than tobacco and should be sold in the U.S. so the government can profit from it and more jobs would also be created in the new "marijuana industry".This would also allow the government to better regulate marijuana distribution and set laws on possessing too much at one time.Cause if you can't beat the drug dealers and narcotics distributers then "join'em".I don't advocate the use of marijuana but I do belief it has the potential to help the economy by providing more jobs.All in all it's a tough topic to pick a side on because American society has looked at marijuana use so unfavorably for such a long time.

ES-201 Post-discussion Stem Cell Research 3/26/09

Stem cell research has shown to be a very promising field within the medical and scientific communities. Adult stem cells that have been reformated and stem cells from umbilical cords have shown to be very helpful in the past in treating chronic illnesses and some debilitating diseases.But when it comes to the possibility of embryonic stem cells being used to cure varying illnesses and diseases moral and ethical questions have been raised by many different individuals and groups of people.Because some individuals hold the belief that by removing stem cells from the human embryo that is in very early stages of development (blastocyst) that you are destroying a human life or at least the possibility of a human life.It's obvious that if these embryonic stem cells were not removed from the blastocyst a human being would surely and most likely develop eventually. After all, everyone began their life as just a small grouping of cells (blastocyst) days after their conception.So essentially some individuals believe that by taking embryonic stem cells from these blastocysts you are eliminating a life that "could have been".The argument of whether or not a blastocyst is a live human being is a complicated argument and depends solely on one's opinion of when a life technically begins.For example, the Pope and members of the Catholic church claim that a human life begins at conception, while others claim a human life begins later on down the road when the human fetus is more developed.Because a group of cells can't think, feel, or make conscious decisions for itself right?

Well, while this may be true I heard a statement made by the con side's argument during our class debate that to me accurately portrayed an example similar to the existence of a blastocyst.They stated that if someone is in a vegetative state, cannot act physically for themselves, and cannot make conscious decisions for themselves do their family members just automatically pull the plug?Life should not be destroyed until one can determine whether or not the chance to live has diminished from being a possibility.Many of the embryonic stem cell lines that are already available for use were obtained when couples went through the process of in-vitro fertilization.In in-vitro fertilization more than one of the female's eggs are paired with the partner's sperm in an attempt to increase the chances of a successful fertilization ocurring.But usually a couple will only choose to have one or two children at most and have the other fertilized eggs simply thrown away.Embryonic stem cells can be harvested from these fertilized eggs that are scheduled to be disposed of.So in a way why would we let these embryonic stem cells go to waste?In my opinion before opening the flood gates on embryonic stem cell research the existing lines of embryonic stem cells should first be tested on a wide range of possibly curable disabilities and diseases that many individuals suffer from.And then if there are extremely promising results then we should more than likely harvest stem cells from parents who do not want them and plan to simply dispose of them.But with the many ethical and moral concerns that are circling around this issue I believe it should at least be proven first that embryonic stem cells do what we think they do before we begin to harvest them in higher amounts.I mean if I wasn't sure how a certain company or corporation would do when they first open would I invest all of my stock into them?The answer to that is no.So I don't think we should put all of our eggs in one basket with embryonic stem cells before the proper experimentation is done and we learn more about their capabilities and the processes they can and can't be implemented in.With the supposed ability to clone human beings through the use of embryonic stem cells also arising as an issue in the past it only complicates the situation further.While if possible, the ability to effectively clone human beings would take much time and effort to perfect.Therefore I do not believe research on embryonic stem cells will focus solely on the technology of cloning human beings at least not for now.But down the road it could most likely be another issue that mankind will have to deal with.I agree with George W. Bush that by just doing research on the effects of using embryonic stem cells using the already existing lines is the safest way to go.Because that way we can first learn more about what they do before investing lots of time and money, and it would also help to avoid having to make the life or death decision when it comes to the "blastocysts" themselves.If the existing embryonic stem cells are used then no one will likely argue against it because it's in the past and the chance for a human life to develop passed a long time ago.It is usually the further practice or activity of harvesting embryonic stem cells that bothers the majority of people.Also the fact that the average American man and woman probably does not know very much about the facts of what embryonic stem cells are, how they are harvested, and the possibilities they've been said to have.It's like a lot of other issues in society in that most people are not well educated about the subject either because they don't care or they have no way of finding out.People cannot fully make a conscious decision as a whole without first understanding all of the facts about the subject.Therefore a lot of individuals who are accounted for as either being for the harvest and research of embryonic stem cells, or against the whole process may or may not know or have heard all of the facts about embryonic stem cells.Take myself for example, I'll admit that I do not know and understand all of the stages of development in human beings therefore I don't believe I can rightfully or knowingly choose one side or the other.I would have to understand the full development of a human embryo up until the moment of birth before I could say whole heartedly when I believe a human embryo can truly be considered a human being.Therefore, I believe that many people simply have chosen sides on the subject just to back up there political party, family's views, friends views, etc.And sometimes individuals simply choose a side just out of spite, because they do not like a certain group of people and their beliefs and consequently they automatically choose to oppose them from the very start.If it was up to me I would allow only government scientists (not privately owned corporations) do research on the existing embryonic stem cell lines but I would discontinue and put a stop to the harvesting of new stem cells.This is due to my belief that to steal these embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst is similar if not the same as murder.To me it's simply logical to dispose of these stem cells because couples enter the process of in-vitro fertilization for one reason which is to have a child or children and not to donate embryonic stem cells.Although I do not understand why the possibility of placing these fertilized eggs into the body of another female who is struggling to conceive naturally possibly with the consent of the initial couple.Similar to a surrogate birth mother scenario and like an extremely early adoption of a child. Here is a link to a website that explains some of the pros and cons of stem cell research: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm.