Euthanasia: To Legalize or not?????

Posted By: Bianca Rogers

Euthanasia, also known as physician- assisted suicide refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner, which relieves pain and suffering. The topic of Euthanasia is highly controversial. The practice of Euthanasia is legal in only four states. These states include Washington, Oregon, Montana and Texas.

            In my opinion, Euthanasia should not be legal at all. Assisting someone in killing themselves is not ethical in my opinion. Terminally ill patients should have a say when it comes to their life in order to stop their illness. This side of the argument is understandable. However, many medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a patient. Many people who are diagnosed as terminally ill do no die for years, if at all.

            Furthermore, the United States is overwhelmed with people who do not have medical insurance. Poor and minority patients are not being given the adequate care needed. In many instances, managed care facilities are giving physicians cash bonuses to not care for patients. Legalized Euthanasia could put patients in a dangerous situation, where doctors are better of financially if a patient "chooses" to die. Doctors may start to persuade patients into this assisted suicide.

            Continuing on, if Euthanasia becomes a choice to patients, then they may feel the need to take it. Many patients will feel guilty for not choosing death. They may feel pressure to relieve a burden they are putting on their families. Added financial pressure could also cause them to choose Euthanasia. What should also be taken into consideration is the fact that it is only legal in four states. This shows that there is a great concern with the usage of this practice.

http://www.euthanasia.com/proscons.html
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126
law.jrank.org/.../Euthanasia-Assisted-Suicide-Pros-Cons.html 

Annsleigh Thornton
Rebuttal:

The act of euthanasia is not one of impatience, maltreatment, or a lack of empathy on behalf of the physician. For a doctor to aid in the demise of an individual, after undergoing valid consideration, he or she is normally acting in the patient's best interest.

No one should morally be permitted to suffer for an extended period of time. If the individual experiencing the illness can no longer sustain extreme physical pressures and agrees to end his or her own life, their decision should be considered and implemented. To relieve someone of agonizing pain is a much greater service than that of trying to maintain what remains of one's life. How can any one bear to view his or her companion in such an unfavoring light? It is selfish to enforce life for one's own personal benefit/emotional relief. It is impossible to hold something that is figuratively and literally out of their hands.

And for those patients who may not posess the ability to speak or physically signal if they agree with the determination of their life, and the family has taken control, one must place themselves in their position. Is the person you care about lying upon a hospital bed for your self-fulfillment? Are they continuing the life they wished to prolong? Or are you mandating the course of some one else's future?

And for those patients who are mentally warped, physically inable, and what most would deem "spirit-less", is the heart truly beating if operated by man-made machine and not natural impulse? The term "vegetable": demeaning and descending. But that is what a loved one will amount to if not disburdened.

Everything Happens for A Reason.

"Everything Happens for A Reason."

Written By: Annsleigh Thornton

"The Lion King", a Disney movie that I have categorized as one of my favorite animated
films, enlightened children around the world and continues to do so today. What often intrigues youth the
most is the action, graphics, color scheme, and up-beat music within the film. Catchy choruses and creative dance sequences are of the abundance, capturing the audience in its first sequential scenes. These aspects of literary design captivated me as well, distracting me from underlying messages within the film.

Everything done in art (including film) is done deliberately and never without reason. The producers of "The Lion King", Disney and its employees, understood that certain individuals with particular backgrounds would interpret "The Lion King" in specific ways. These viewers would decode the information that producers purposefully encoded in the film with bias opinions and beliefs. There is a reason Scar, the antagonist of the film, was of a darker complexion than protagonists Simba and Mufassa. It is a dominant ideology that anything black or dark is dangerous or bad. If "The Lion King" portrayed Africans developing the same tale, I am positive Mufassa would have been globally accepted as a light skinned male. In contrast,
Scar would then be viewed as a darker skinned male. Strategically placed ideologies such as this continue to surface as the film unfolds.

"The Lion King" is entirely focussed around patriarchal privilege, another ideology that is
easier to digest when combined with song and dance. Simba, Mufassa's son, inherits
power over the land from his Father. The film "nature"-alizes this action and implies that
this is how animals truly behave. This minimizes and/or eliminates the role of the Mother.
In actuality, the female lion serves a huge role in the ordinance of a pride. But, by
negating animalistic truths for the purpose of the film "The Lion King" is able to minimize
the importance of the female in nature and by extension, human society. As the film
prolongs other ideologies are introduced: the antagonistc characters are voiced by
African Americans, Scar is linked to homosexuality because of his slurred speech,
limp wrist, and weak demeanor, and Rafiki, the baboon character voiced by an African
American, is scripted to practice natural remedies or, as I interpreted, Voodoo.

Of course all of these accusations are subject to personal opinion. But, a true artist, whom
Disney is acclaimed to be, would never "mistakingly" introduce concepts that would
receive a negative reaction amongst viewers. He would in turn do it purposefully.

Rebuttal: Amy Perry
Disney movies...movies associated with great childhood memories and happy events. "All cartoon characters and fables must be exaggeration, caricatures. It is the very nature of fantasy and fable," is something that Walt Disney was quoted as saying. Walt Disney is the creator of fantastical movies that entertain children, that adults have also come to love. 


I agree with Annsleigh on the point that "The Lion King" is a movie that is focused on patriarchy. How is a movie about patriarchy turned into something negative? I agree with the fact that Scar's darker complexion is something that is associated with negativity; dark colors are associated with "dark" situations. Then again, Scar's name is self-explanatory, which is why he had a scar on his face. Everything was negative about his character, but I do not agree with the fact that Scar was meant to portray a dark-skinned African-American male. At the time that "The Lion King" was created, neither light-skinned nor dark-skinned men were accepted in society. Annsleigh's argument is faulty at this point. 


Disney was a businessman who knew what sold and what did not. Often, artists put effort into their creations, but in the case of "The Lion King," Disney was just doing what he knew would sell-using characters and a storyline that children would appreciate and parents would approve of.

Think TWD is NBD? RIP.

WRITTEN BY: AMY PERRY

Texting while driving. Hundreds of thousands of people do it with no regard to the possible consequences. They are focused on sending that ever-important text message that can not wait until the next red light, let alone until they have safely reached their destination. There has been a lot of buzz (no pun intended) about recent laws proposed and implemented to increase the safety of all people on the road. Currently, only eight states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington State), D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using handheld cell phones, for any reason, while driving. Thirty states, D.C. and Guam ban text messaging for all drivers. Eleven of these laws were enacted in 2010. The creation of these laws was inevitable. There has been a recent uptake in the number of accidents caused by texting while driving. In 2008, at any particular time, more than 800,000 Americans were using their cell phone in some way while driving during the daytime. In that same year, 6,000 Americans were killed by a distracted driver-or they were the distracted driver. Though young adults aged 16-24 is the age group who is pinpointed the most for texting while driving, other age groups are guilty of doing it, too. In 2008 in Newport Beach, California, Martin Burt Kuehl, 42, was sending text messages from his cell phone minutes before he struck a woman who was crossing the street. This incident occurred at 8:31 AM in broad daylight. Prior to the crash, a person who was driving behind Kuehl honked because Kuehl was waiting 10 to 15 seconds before proceeding through a green light (because he was focused on his text messages.) Kuehl apparently thought that the woman that he had recently met on a singles website was more important than his and others' safety. I'm sure that individuals will try to justify texting while driving, but there is really no excuse for it. Is answering that text message really worth risking others' safety-and your own? I think not.


http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell/statistics.html

REBUTTAL: BIANCA ROGERS

While texting and driving is a very serious issue in today's society, I do not feel it should be  the only issue that this law focuses on. Yes, texting while driving is dangerous, but so is putting on makeup while driving, eating while driving, etc. Texting while driving in some states is being considered the same as drunk driving, for instance in Utah, where the maximum penalty for texting while driving is 15 years in prison.  In my opinion, if you are going to single out texting, you should also include anything that would cause a distraction to someone while driving. I also think that people are not going to abide by these laws as need be. Take for instance the drunk driving laws, even though there are penalties that come with drunk driving, many people still today drink and drive. It is not going have that much of an impact the person until they kill someone. Also, policemen are finding it hard to enforce these laws. They say that it is hard because they do not have the proper training and it is hard to recognize if someone is actually texting or if they are just dialing a number. The laws in most states do not cover everyone for the no texting law. It mainly focuses on teenagers which seems a little unfair. If the law is going to be in-effect it should affect everybody.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/texting-while-driving-same-as-drunk-driving-in-utah-good-idea

Cyber Bullying: A Cause for Concern?

Being an adolescent in today's society, along with all the technological advances which have been made, brings along new concerns. Cyber bullying, by definition, "involves the use of information and communication technologies to support, deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." With the technological advances of today's world it is easier to confront a person you dislike over a computer screen rather than face-to-face. With this being said, the most hateful things can be said without confrontation between the persons involved. The question is however, is this a cause for concern?

            Soccer star Alexis Pilkington 17, committed suicide after she had been taunted on several social networking sites. After her death a tribute page was made for her, yet the taunting still continued.  Megan Meier, 13, was found hung in her closet after her adult neighbor posed as a "hot" guy on the site Myspace and pretended to like her then suddenly started calling her a "slut." The neighbor even went so far as to say that life would be better without Megan on this earth. 

            According to recent cyber bullying statistics, 42 percent of kids have been bullied while online. One in four of them have had it happen to them more than once. To date, only five states have cyber bullying laws. Should more laws be put into place to keep these preventable deaths from happening? Yes. Without these laws,cyber bullying attacks will keep getting worse in my opinion.  Will the laws be effective is the underlying question however.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/29/earlyshow/main6343077.shtml

http://www.isafe.org/channels/sub.php?ch=op&sub_id=media_cyber_bullying

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494809/Girl-13-commits-suicide-cyber-bullied-neighbour-posing-teenage-boy.html

http://www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws_20100701.pdf