THE TRIAL OF ALGER HISS

Alger Hiss was a married man with kids who worked in the Supreme Court justice and served in the Department of Agriculture.  He was accused of being a communist spy.  The United States government thought that Hiss had plans with Russia and gave Russia secret information on the United States government.  Also accused was his wife, who was affiliated with the crime he committed.  He had another man on the job with him, Whittaker Chambers, who worked to not be seen at all.  But through the trial Alger Hiss signed a statement that says he had never been affiliated with Chambers.

Through the time that the spy game was going on Alger Hiss sued Chambers for assuming and telling the U.S. government that he was a spy with no proof or accusations at all.  Chambers had told investigators that Alger Hiss has given him a bunch of undeveloped film in a hollowed out pumpkin in his Maryland farm.  The investigators look into the undeveloped pictures and it is many pictures of evidence which should not have been seen. Hiss had the intentions of showing those pictures to other countries governments, like Russia, and his plan was to make America weak as a whole.  There was also a Woodstock typewriter which was used to type certain information to send to Russia. 60 FBI agents had aquired it to examine it for clues and evidence that could tie Alger Hiss to the crime with some help from Chambers.  In the first trial for Alger Hiss the jury was in a deadlocked; 8 jurors found him guilty, 4 found him not guilty, so another trial was set to begin.  In the second trial for Alger Hiss the judge Henry Godard found him guilty of two counts of perjury, but the sentence came after 24 hours of studying the case.  He was sent to five years in prison. Hiss began serving his five-year term at the federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. And in the 1952 elections Republicans blamed Hiss and the Democrats for betraying the nation and blamed them for what was going on in other countries. Hiss was freed after serving 3 years and 8 months out of the 5 year sentence.  Right as he got out and he started his life again and starts to write his book In The Court Of The Public Opinion.  As Hiss is writing his book Chambers died of a heart attack. Then that reopened the case. People are now reviewing the case with a lot more information. Richard Nixon published his book and has a chapter about the Hiss trial, which has been found to have been written wrong and filled with missing information.

       I.            Intro

1. Gaining Attention- Death is an inevitable fact of life most people would shy away from. But some, those who face it daily as they wait, welcome it. They ask for it by name. Euthanasia is their so-called answer. The problem with that, though, is that assisted suicide is not an answer. It is seen by its advocates “as a cure for diseases, and a way of appropriating death’s power over the human capacity.”(Problems of Death, 95) That is not an answer. A cure helps people; it does not destroy them. Euthanasia does just that; it destroys a life and banishes it to a place it cannot come back from.
2. Motivate Audience- see above
3. Establish Credibility- Readings and facts which I have found prove that it is not an answer
4. Preview Main Points- and by using the meaning, the ways, and ethics, you shall know that euthanasia is not the answer.

    II.            Definitions

1. Greek word, euthanasia, with eu meaning “good” and thanatos meaning “death”; literally means good death
2. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures
3. the art or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
4. Dr. Thomas Beam: “While the act of physician-assisted suicide seems compassionate on the surface, it is often the abandonment of the patient in their most needy time. Instead of support, the patient may only find confirmation of the hopelessness of their condition and physician-assisted suicide is legitimized as the only ‘way.”(Bohlin)
5. Disprove Definition: should not be an art, don’t know how painless it is
6. Perfected form of legalized murder

 III.            Ways

1. lethal injection; one of the ways a convict can choose to be killed; usually is a mix of various drugs
2. pulling the plug on life-support patients or removing feeding tubes- Terry Schivo
3. can request death, and doctors can “accidentally” leave extra medication
4. problems all stemming from the legal ability of euthanasia
5. disprove those who are not conscience and have not been for a strong amount of time should deserve the release death brings

                                                              i.      feeding tube removed consists of almost starving to death, while a plug pulled results in the machines stopping, thus the aid for breathing and other bodily functions stops

                                                            ii.      option of an injection that can be given to those on death row does not seem dignified

 IV.            Ethics

1. may not know that “extraordinary measures are not required to keep a dying person alive at all costs”(Bohlin)
2. having “pain is a factor in 30% of euthanasia requests,” one should simply attempt to relieve the pain and ease the fear of pain instead of destroying the life
3. multiple ways to relieve pain, including hospice and morphine, in which there are “new ways of administering morphine, for example, that can achieve effective pain management with lower doses and therefore a lower risk of respiratory complications.” (Bohlin)
4. Hippocratic Oath, doctors should not be allowed to cause such harm in a person without some repercussion
5. Road you cannot return from

    V.            Conclusion

1. Signaling End- Euthanasia may be thought of as some sort of miracle advancement, but it is just perfected murder that can become legalized. Euthanasia is not a “good death” that its meaning boasts, but a way to end pain without attempting to help it. It is helping those who need other help than just death they think they want.
2. Review of Main Points- With the questions posed by this troublesome idea, the confusing meaning, and the ways to die that could be painless or painful
3. Reference to Intro- see signaling end
4. Ending With Impact- see above

Probe Ministries

Euthanasia: The Battle for Life
Physician-Assisted Suicide

Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin

Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States

On March 6, 1996, the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Washington state’s ban on physician-assisted suicide. By a surprisingly commanding 8-3 vote, the court ruled that terminally- ill adults have a constitutional right to end their lives. Essentially, the court decided that an individual’s right to determine the time and manner of his own death outweighed the state’s duty to preserve life. This ruling will also likely uphold Oregon’s voter approved doctor-assisted suicide law that has been bogged down in the courts.

The only recourse now is the Supreme Court, which is not expected to overrule the Appeals Court’s decisions. On April 2, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New York state’s bans on assisted-suicide were “discriminatory.” Then on May 15, 1996, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the infamous “Dr. Death,” was acquitted for a third time of doctor-assisted suicide in the state of Michigan.

The stage is set for a revolution in the law concerning euthanasia in this country. Kevorkian’s escapes from the law and these recent rulings from the Appeals Courts will further encourage the “right- to-die” lobby which seeks to make doctor-assisted suicide the law of the land. What will be overlooked is over 2,000 years of medical practice and ethical codes. The Hippocratic Oath, originating in 400 B.C., and the standard for medical practice ever since, states, “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to that effect.”

Allowing doctors to end life as well as preserve life would change the face of the entire medical community.The doctor/patient relationship will be forever compromised. Is your doctor’s advice truly in your best interests or in his best interest to rid the hospital and himself of a pesky patient and situation?

Dr. Thomas Beam, chairman of the Medical Ethics Commission of the Christian Medical and Dental Society points out, “While the act of physician-assisted suicide seems compassionate on the surface, it is often the abandonment of the patient in their most needy time. Instead of support, the patient may only find confirmation of the hopelessness of their condition and physician-assisted suicide is legitimized as the only ‘way.’”(1) It is not terribly difficult to see how this circumstance would undermine the delicate relationship between a doctor and his patient.

Surely, you say, most people don’t agree with the policy of doctor- assisted suicide. However, the New England Journal of Medicine reported a poll from the state of Michigan which indicated that “66 percent of state residents and 56 percent of Michigan doctors would prefer that doctor-assisted suicide be legalized not outlawed.”(2) And even though doctor-assisted laws were defeated in referendums in California and Washington, the defeats were narrow. And a similar law was finally passed in Oregon in 1994. In addition, 23 states are now considering such legislation. And as mentioned earlier, two different Appeals Courts have ruled in favor of doctor-assisted laws. In this essay I will examine why so many favor legalization of assisted suicide. I will take a close look at Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the most visible proponent of assisted suicide. Also, I will examine what the Bible has to say about life, death, and God’s sovereignty. Finally, I will discuss some test cases and inform you about what you can do to combat this growing evil in our land.

Who is Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Why Do People Seek His Help?

Why is such a large segment of our society, over 60% in some communities, enamored with the possibility of physician-assisted suicide? While there can be many roads that will lead to this conclusion, the primary one is fear. People today fear being at the mercy of technology, of being kept alive with no hope of recovery by machines. Few seem to realize that it is already legal for a terminally ill patient to refuse life-prolonging measures. We must realize that there is a difference between simply allowing nature to take its course when someone is clearly dying and taking direct measures to hasten someone’s death. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop acknowledges,

If someone is dying and there is no doubt about that, and you believe as I do that there is a difference between giving a person all the life to which he is entitled as opposed to prolonging the act of dying, then you might come to a time when you say this person can take certain amounts of fluid by mouth and we’re not going to continue this intravenous solution because he is on the way out.(3)

Extraordinary measures are not required to keep a dying person alive at all costs. But some people fear exactly that. Removing this fear will take a lot of the wind out of the euthanasia sails.

Secondly, people fear the pain of the dying process. Intractable pain is a real fear, but few people today realize that most of the pain of terminally ill patients can be dealt with. Many doctors, particularly in the U.S., are not aware of all the measures at their disposal. There are new ways of administering morphine, for example, that can achieve effective pain management with lower doses and therefore a lower risk of respiratory complications.

Dr. Paul Cundiff, practicing oncologist and hospice care physician with 18 years of experience treating dying patients says,

It is a disgrace that the majority of our health care providers lack the knowledge and the skills to treat pain and other symptoms of terminal disease properly. The absence of palliative caretraining for medical professionals results in sub-optimal care for almost all terminally ill patients and elicits the wish to hasten their own deaths in a few.(4)

But many would even be willing to live with the pain if they knew that they would not be left alone. The growth in the hospice movement will help alleviate this fear as well. The staff at a hospice is trained to deal not only with physical pain, but with psychological, social, and spiritual pain as well. If you have seen pictures of the many people Jack Kevorkian has assisted to commit suicide, you cannot help but notice that these are lonely, miserable people. Pain has had little to do with their desire to commit suicide. As a nation we have in large part abandoned our elderly population. When God commanded Israel to honor their fathers and their mothers, this was understood to mean primarily in their older years. Extended families no longer live together even when the medical needs of parents are not severe or terribly limiting. No one wants to be a burden or to be burdened.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a retired pathologist with essentially no training in patient care. He is simply on a personal mission to bring about legalized physician-assisted suicide to help usher in a code of ethics based totally on relativism. “Ethics must change as the situation changes,” he says. “That’s the way to keep control. Not by an inflexible maxim that applies for two thousand years, but an ethical code that will change a decade later.”(5) Right now Kevorkian’s victims are the few lonely and desperate individuals who seek him out. The future victims of his crusade will not only be those who wish to die, but those whom doctors and relatives feel should die.

The Lessons of Holland

One of the primary reasons for concern about the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is the now runaway death culture of Holland. Doctor-assisted suicide was essentially legalized in Holland in 1973 by two court decisions. While not officially legalizing euthanasia in Holland, the courts simply said that if you follow certain guidelines you will not be prosecuted.

The problem is that any such regulations are not enforceable. As a result, the government of Netherlands reported in 1991 that only 41% of the doctors obey the rules and 27% admitted to performing involuntary euthanasia. That is, without the patient’s consent! In addition,over 2% of the deaths in Holland in 1990 were the result of direct voluntary euthanasia, but 6% of all deaths were the result of involuntary euthanasia.

Many people in Holland today carry around a card that states they are not to be euthanized without their consent! That is precisely where we are headed. Once a right to physician-assisted suicide is established as it was in Holland, it soon degenerates into others being willing and able to make the decision for you.(6)

In Holland, doctors performed involuntary killing because they thought the family had suffered too much; some were tired of taking care of patients, and one was mad at his patient!(7) Even the conditions of allowed voluntary euthanasia are appalling.Robin Bernhoft, a U.S. surgeon of the liver and pancreas, relates an incident where a doctor in Holland told of a 26 year-old ballerina with arthritis in her toes requesting to be euthanized. Apparently since she could no longer pursue her career as a dancer, she was depressed and no longer wished to live. Amazingly, the doctor complied with her request. His only justification was to say that “One doesn’t enjoy such things, but it was her choice!”(8)

With this in mind, when the discussion of guidelines comes up, remember that in Holland, guidelines were useless. Enforcement is near impossible, and families and doctors as well as patients will succumb to the pressures of pain, depression and inconvenience. Sadly, pain and depression are treatable. There have been tremendous advancements in pain management which the American medical community is only recently being brought up to speed on. Depression can also be addressed but some patients, families, and doctors are often too impatient and lacking in genuine compassion to do the hard work to bring someone out of a depression. It is easier to offer help in suicide.

The lessons of Holland need to reinforce in our minds the necessity of making as many people aware of the dangers as possible. Since our society is now dominated by a world view that prizes individual autonomy and shuns any mention of Biblical ethics, it can be very easy, yet ultimately, deadly, to go along with the crowd.

Why Life Is Worth Living: What the Bible Teaches

As we discuss the issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, it is critical that we not only understand what is going on in the world around us but that we also understand what the Bible clearly teaches about, life, death, pain, suffering, and the value of each human life.

First, The Bible teaches that we are made in the image of God and therefore, every human life is sacred (Genesis 1:26). In Psalm 139:13-16 we learn that each of us is fearfully and wonderfully made. God himself has knit us together in our mother’s womb. We must be very important to Him if He has taken such care to bring us into existence.

Second, the Bible is very clear that God is sovereign over life, death and judgement.In Deuteronomy 32:39 The Lord says, “See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me, I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.” Psalm 139:16 says that it is God who has ordained all of our days before there is even one of them.Paul says essentially the same thing in Ephesians 1:11.

Third, to assist someone in committing suicide is to commit murder and this breaks God’s unequivocal commandment in Exodus 20:13.

Fourth, God’s purposes are beyond our understanding. We often appeal to God as to why some tragedy has happened to us or someone we know. Yet listen to Job’s reply to the Lord in Job 42:1-3:

I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] ‘Who is this that obscures My counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,things too wonderful for me to know.

We forget that our minds are finite and His is infinite. We cannot always expect to understand all of what God is about. To think that we can step in and declare that someone’s life is no longer worth living is simply not our decision to make. Only God knows when it is time. In Isaiah 55:8-9 the Lord declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

Fifth, our bodies belong to God anyway. Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 6:15,19 that we are members of Christ’s body and that we have been bought with a price. Therefore we should glorify God with our bodies. The only one to receive glory when someone requests doctor-assisted suicide is not God, not the doctor, not even the family but the patient for being willing to “nobly” face the realities of life and “unselfishly” end everyone else’s misery. There is no glory for God in this decision.

Lastly, suffering draws us closer to God. In light of the euthanasia controversy, listen to Paul’s words from 2 Corinthians 1:8:

We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.

Not only does He raise the dead but there is nothing that can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38). For an inspiring and thoroughly biblical discussion of the euthanasia issue, read Joni Earickson Tada’s book When is it Right to Die? (Zondervan, 1992). Her testimony and clear thinking is in stark contrast to the conventional wisdom of the world today. We must do the same.

What Will You Do? What Can You Do?

The Christian Medical and Dental Society has produced an excellent resource on physician-assisted suicide titled The Battle for Life.(9) As a part of the package they provide several cases to test your grasp of the principles involved and to help Christians be aware of the tough decisions that have to be made. I would like to share two of those with you and then discuss what you can do now to combat the “right to die” forces in this country.

Here is test case one:

Your 80 year-old grandmother has been fighting cancer for some time now and feels the emotional strain. She feels like she’ll become a burden to the family. Her doctor notes that she seems to have lost her desire to live. Should she be able to have her doctor give her a prescription expressly designed to kill her?

This is precisely what the courts have legalized in recent months and precisely what God’s word says is wrong. It is wrong because it would be taking her life into our hands and violating God’s sovereignty. Because physician-assisted suicide goes beyond letting someone die naturally to actually causing the death, it violates God’s commandment, You shall not murder. There is a clear distinction between allowing death to take its natural course in someone who is clearly dying with no hope of a cure, and taking specific measures to end someone’s life. There comes a time when the body is imminently dying. Bodily functions begin to shut down. At this point, people should be made as comfortable as possible, be supported and encouraged by their family and doctors, and allowed to die. This is death with dignity. Taking a lethal injection or breathing poisonous carbon monoxide takes life out of God’s hands and into our own.

Test case number two:

Your spouse has an incurable fatal disease, has lost control of bodily functions and is unable to communicate. Special treatment and equipment can extend your spouse’s life for a few weeks or even months but will involve much pain and exhaustion. Would it be morally right for you to not arrange for the treatment?

Many would accept a decision not to arrange for treatment because that would not be killing but simply allowing death to take its natural course. Such decisions are not always clear-cut, however, and a physician and family members must take into account the pros and cons of intervention versus a faster natural death. Sometimes we rationalize that we need to keep the patient alive as long as possible because God may still work a miracle. But just how much time does God need to work a miracle? If God is going to intervene He will do so on His time and not ours.

Now that we have a better understanding of the issues, you may be wondering just what we can do about this threat among us. Three things:

Pray – Pray that God will turn the hearts of people back to Himself and back to protecting life. Pray for righteousness and justice in our legal system, that we enact laws that preserve life, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

Speak Out – Present this information to other groups. Talk with your friends and family and discuss the reasons for protecting life.Contact your state and federal legislators and tell them to stand against physician-assisted suicide.

Reach Out – Visit the elderly, care for those who can’t care for themselves, comfort the sick. Consider joining or starting a church ministry to the elderly, handicapped, or other individuals with special needs. As Christians we must lead the way with our hearts and actions and not just our words. If we devote our energies to providing quality and loving care and effective pain control, the euthanasia issue will die from a lack of interest.

© 1996 Probe Ministries International

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dictionary.com stuff

 

^noun

Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.

 

painless death.

^{n.  The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
euthanasia} 

^{1606, from Gk. euthanasia “an easy or happy death,” from eu- “good” + thanatos “death.” Sense of “legally sanctioned mercy killing” is first recorded in Eng. 1869.}

            Death is an inevitable fact of life most people would shy away from. But some, those who face it daily as they wait, welcome it. They ask for it by name. Euthanasia is their so-called answer. The problem with that, though, is that assisted suicide is not an answer. It is seen by its advocates “as a cure for diseases, and a way of appropriating death’s power over the human capacity.”(Problems of Death, 95) That is not an answer. A cure helps people; it does not destroy them. Euthanasia does just that; it destroys a life and banishes it to a place it cannot come back from. Readings and facts which I have found prove that it is not an answer, and by using the meaning, the ways, and ethics, you shall know that euthanasia is not the answer.

            It is a Greek word, euthanasia, with eu meaning “good” and thanatos meaning “death”, translating literally to “a good death”. Other definitions explain it as “the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures” and “the art or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.” (Dictionary.com) Dr. Thomas Beam, chairman of the Medical Ethics Commission of the Christian Medical and Dental Society points out, “While the act of physician-assisted suicide seems compassionate on the surface, it is often the abandonment of the patient in their most needy time. Instead of support, the patient may only find confirmation of the hopelessness of their condition and physician-assisted suicide is legitimized as the only ‘way.”(Bohlin).  It is not known how painless these measures are, because those who experience them die. Ending a life should not be considered an art, and in calling it an art it shows the true side of euthanasia, not a merciful way for a suffering individual to die, but more of a perfected form of legal murder.

            People can die in multiple ways, but the ways of euthanasia are many yet few. As stated above, one way is lethal injection, which is also one of the ways a convict can choose to be killed. This usually is a mix of various drugs combined to stop the heart and keep pain out of the equation. Other ways include pulling the plug on life-support patients or removing feeding tubes, as in the case of Terry Schivo. Patients who are conscience can request death, and doctors can “accidentally” leave extra medication. There are multiple problems with these ways, all stemming from the legal ability of euthanasia. There are those that believe that those who are not conscience and have not been for a strong amount of time should deserve the release death brings. But it is not known how sweet the release is. A feeding tube removed consists of almost starving to death, while a plug pulled results in the machines stopping, thus the aid for breathing and other bodily functions stops. Giving patients the option of an injection that can be given to those on death row does not seem dignified either.

            And with the reasons for this wish being so wide, can people really grant those this wish? People may not know that “extraordinary measures are not required to keep a dying person alive at all costs”(Bohlin) But with having “pain is a factor in 30% of euthanasia requests,” one should simply attempt to relieve the pain and ease the fear of pain instead of destroying the life? There are multiple ways to relieve pain, including hospice and morphine, in which there are “new ways of administering morphine, for example, that can achieve effective pain management with lower doses and therefore a lower risk of respiratory complications.” (Bohlin).  And with the Hippocratic Oath, doctors should not be allowed to cause such harm in a person without some repercussion, because this road is one that you can’t return from.

            Euthanasia may be thought of as some sort of miracle advancement, but it is just perfected murder that can become legalized. Euthanasia is not a “good death” that its meaning boasts, but a way to end pain without attempting to help it. It is helping those who need other help than just death they think they want. With the questions posed by this troublesome idea, the confusing meaning, and the ways to die that could be painless or painful, euthanasia is something that should not be allowed to permit.

Everyone has only one life to live so you should live everyday like it’s your last. If one of your family members are told that they only have a certain amount of time left to live you would want them to have their last minutes in happiness and pain free. This is where euthanasia steps in. Either you can have them living in pain and stressing or R.I.P and be happy. Many of you may not know what euthanasia is but it is assisted suicide which is basically when someone is dying and they ask you to pull the plugs. It may be a hard decision for you but you would also be helping them and giving them what they want or you can just say no.

                Waiting in a hospital bed, fluids being pumped into your body, you watch as another dies next to you, slowly and painfully. You envy him, for his ability to die quickly. “I want to die,” you state, trying to convey to your doctor how you feel, but it doesn’t work. You have to sit there and wait. Euthanasia is not a choice that should be made by those in the situations of which it would applicable. It would be along the lines of giving a severely depressed person the option of suicide. If a person is in so much pain and suffering that they feel life is not worth living, they are not there mentally to make such serious and weighted decisions.

Arguments Against Euthanasia:

• Euthanasia devalues human life
• Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
• Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death
• There is a “slippery slope” effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only
  the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.

• Euthanasia: The intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)
• CON: “Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation.
• Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer.”

• Right to Die
• Patient Suffering at End-of-Life
• Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder
• Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing
• Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions
•  

CON: “The history of the law’s treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted ‘right’ to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

 

CON: “In debates with those bioethicists and physicians who believe that euthanasia is both deeply compassionate and also a logical way to cut health care costs, I am invariably scorned when I mention ‘the slippery slope.’ When the states legalize the deliberate ending of certain lives — I try to tell them — it will eventually broaden the categories of those who can be put to death with impunity.

I am told that this is nonsense in our age of highly advanced medical ethics. And American advocates of euthanasia often point to the Netherlands as a model — a place where euthanasia is quasi-legal for patients who request it…

Yet the September 1991 official government Remmelink Report on euthanasia in the Netherlands revealed that at least 1,040 people die every year from involuntary euthanasia. Their physicians were so consumed with compassion that they decided not to disturb the patients by asking their opinion on the matter.”

CON: “The equality-of-human-life ethic requires that each of us be considered of equal inherent moral worth, and it makes the preservation and protection of human life society’s first priority.

Accepting euthanasia would replace the equality-of-human-life ethic with a utilitarian and nihilistic ‘death culture’ that views the intentional ending of certain human lives as an appropriate and necessary answer to life’s most difficult challenges… [T]he dire consequences that would flow from such a radical shift in morality are profound and disturbing.”

CON: “It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress — such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness — may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, permitting physicians to engage in euthanasia would ultimately cause more harm than good. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient’s life. Euthanasia could also readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations.

Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible. Patients near the end of life must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.”

Pastels on white canvas

Blues, pinks, reds, crimson blood

Staining a picture into eternity

On plaster, on stone, with oil or chalk

A five-year-old’s drawing done at school

Or a project for a high-school art class

Or a Da Vinci on the wall, a copy in a book

The origionals sought after, stared at, stolen

The Mona Lisa, contemplate her enigmatic smile

Study them, admire them, delve into them

Whether it a stick-figure drawing or a fairytale landscape

Appreciate the art

Finally, my true feelings about AP Statistics so far:

 

Statistics, numbers, letters spell

Problems so hard and confusing as hell

A tangled web of made-up figures

A melting pot of fantasy cures

Add them up, multiply, and subtract

Observe the response, numbers stack

Are they disjoint, or independant

Or something else we haven’t learned yet

File them out, list the sample space

Venn diagrams, tree carts are the face

Probability, chance, random, and truth

To follow along, one must find out truth

Combining and diagraming averages at bat

Nothing more complicated than AP Stat