Argument for the Legalization of Euthanasia

The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words that mean literally, a good, or dignified death. It is a conscious act that leads to the supposedly quick and painless death of a terminally ill person, with the intention of stopping his suffering. The first time that euthanasia was introduced in the twentieth century was in fascist Germany. According to information from the Nuremburg trials, from 1939 to 1941, seventy thousand living people were destroyed, categorized as "beings deprived of quality of life."Two thirds of the 500,000 people who die every year in the UK want to do so in the comfort of their own homes, but only one fifth manage to do so. this is because the care offered to them in their final days, if they are on an National Health Service ward, will generally be minimal, other than to supply medication and bedpans. Research has shown that two out three people would rather go on their own free will rather suffer at the fate of society's medical systems.In 1974, the "Manifesto of euthanasia" was published, signed by more than forty famous people, including Nobel laureates. In it is written, "We maintain that it is immoral to accept or impose suffering. We believe in the value and dignity of the individual, from which proceeds the necessity to allow him the freedom to rationally decide what to do with his own life." Euthanasia should be legalized because people have an explicit right to die and because it is possible to regulate euthanasia.

The basic argument for euthanasia based on human rights is that people have an explicit right to die.
"In..cases where there are no dependents who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions."(The Independent,2002). According to rights a human being has, the right to life includes, a right to life with a minimum quality and value. People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible and if the dying process is unpleasant, people have the right to shorten it and thus reduce the unpleasantness. Also the European Suicide Act(1961) made it legal for people to take their own lives.(meaning that you cannot punish someone for succeeding at suicide). Also there is a Libertarian argument that since euthanasia promotes the best interest of everyone involved and violates no one's rights, it is morally acceptable. Gillon(1992) defines autonomy in its most literal sense as being "self rule" or the capacity to think, decide and act on the basis of such thought and decision freely and independently without let or hindrance. Also the legal right to stop or refuse treatment has been recognized as part of the common law right to self-determination since 1914 (Friedman 1986).From this discussion, it is clear that a number of arguments can be made in support of the view that the interests at stake with regard to euthanasia should be recognized as a right. Based on experiences from other cases, human rights will play a vital role in the euthanasia debate. Although the Bill of Rights does not recognize the right to die, it does not appear to preclude active voluntary euthanasia either as long as the required procedural requirements  are inserted in any country allowing the person to request assistance to die.

Another reason for the legalization of euthanasia is that it is possible to regulate euthanasia. The Netherlands because the first country in Europe to legalize euthanasia. It was passed by the Lower House of Parliament on Nov 28,2000. The government recognized that the criminal law did not protect the patient, nor did the decriminalization of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia was legalized only after two national surveys were conducted in 1990 and 1995("Euthanasia legalized in Netherlands,"2002). In a research study carried out in Belgium, findings showed that in countries where there was no system of regulating euthanasia, less attention was given to careful end of life decision-making, putting the vulnerable at risk. It was in consideration of public policy reasons that the Belgian government voted to legalize euthanasia, ensuring that medical practice was properly regulated. In Australia too, euthanasia was legalized as long as certain prerequisites are met. Recent surveys show that there is an increase in support for for voluntary euthanasia(Robinson, 2000). Using the case study of Dr.Adams, at his trial(R. v.Adams,1957),Judge Delvin(former justice of Crown Court) said that the administration of drugs to relieve pain would not amount to legal causation. "The attitude against euthanasia is gradually and slowly eroding in many European countries, and there is a shift toward humanization of law."(Edamaruku, 2000)

Nowadays, in many countries the civilian population is for legalization of euthanasia and politicians in these places are now studying the situation before making changes or reforms. The practice of this mercy killing is quite dependent at the mercy of the general practitioners. Their recommendations and analysis plays a pivotal role in people's treatment choice and what they say may influence patients. Also though the present law lacks sufficient control and monitoring mechanisms in order to ascertain that the request is without flaws, there are methods in place in some countries, like psychological reports, written confirmations  and video documentation of the activity that make sure there is no foul play. The debate on this practice from varied perspectives will continue for some time to come. the criminal law, however, will have the highest impact in generating reforms. these reforms will resolve any legal doubt or answer lingering questions on the subject. It is recommended that each country should come up with its own solution to debate and should not try to copy systems that are already in place in other countries.


 References :

>Cole J.J. (1989) To kill or to allow to die. Death Studies 13,393-406.
>Fletcher J.( 1960) The patients right to die. Harpera 3,141-142.
>Gillon R. (1992) Philosophical Medical Ethics 4th edn,John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
>Gomez C.F. (1991) Regulating Death in the case of the Netherlands. The Free Press, New York.
>Harris J. (1994) The value of Life, Routledge, London.
>Abortion and euthanasia are murder too. (1999, May 9).
>American Convention on Human Rights. (1969, November 22). Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica.
>Bassiouni, C. (1992). Crimes against humanity. InM. Cherif (Ed.), (pp. 339-396). International criminal law. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
>Belgium legalizes doctor assisted dying. (2002)
>Curan, J. (1976). The proper and improper concerns of medical lawand ethic. New England Journal of Medicine, 295, 1057.
>European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom. (1950, November 4). Euthanasia and physical assisted suicide: All sides.
>Kennedy, I. (1976). The legal effect of request by the terminally ill and aged not to receive further treatment from doctors. Criminal Law Review, April, 217-232.
>Universal declaration on human rights. (1948, December). Adopted by the General Assembly resolution 217 A(111).

 ABOLISHING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Death penalty has been a mode of punishment since time immemorial. The arguments for and against have not changed much over the years. Crime as well as the mode of punishment correlate to the culture and form of civilization from which they emerge. With the march of civilization, the modes of death punishment have witnessed significant humanized changes. However, according to Amnesty International(an international body with over 3million members in 150 countries), the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It violates the right to life as  as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The great Indian emperor Ashoka once said," State should not punish with vengeance". This quote by the wise emperor is apt in this discussion as it explains that state should attempt to control crime, not commit it by sanctioning a killing on its own citizen regardless of his or her character or action.

Among the most common arguments for abolishing capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to future murders. Renowned criminologist William Bowers (Northeastern University,USA) maintains that the death penalty has the opposite effect; that is, society is brutalized by the use of capital punishment, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. According to research by a leading American university, States in the US that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The US itself has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada, where capital punishment is not practiced. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked," It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty". Also a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty. As proof of this, taking excerpts from Austin Fletcher, Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University(Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty”, 1997, American Civil Liberties Union) says that "there is no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective detterent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment." (Bailey and Peterson,Criminology(1987)). Evidently, the threat of death penalty 'does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.' (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982)). "Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion."(Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center,2000)

Another justification for the argument againt death penalty is that the risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of death penalty. The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 88 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 650 people have been executed. Thus, for every seven people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business. A recent study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely
acquitted. Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice remarked, " There is no question in my mind that we have certainly, in the past, executed those people who either didn't fit the criteria for execution or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed." Taking the example of Ray Krone, who was released in 2002, he spent 10years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit.He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973.DNA testing proved his innocence. Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society's needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

Another irrefutable argument against capital punishment is that the death penalty is applied unfairly. In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the country in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim. According to studies done by the American Civil Liberties Union, approximately 35% of those executed since 1976 have been black, even though blacks constitute only 12% of the population.The odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times higher if the defendant is black. Also in states like Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania the percentage of blacks on death row are almost 60-70%. In 1990, the U.S.General Accounting Office reviewed numerous studies of patterns of racial discrimination in death penalty sentencing and they found out that it was more likely to receive death penalty if the victim was white.of people currently on death row in U.S, 82% were convicted in cases involving white victims.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. quotes," Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal's skin."

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who
commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have
enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain.
Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race
and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of
who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

References :

1>Johnson, J. L., & Johnson, C. F. (2001). Poverty and the death penalty. Journal of Economic Issues, 35(2), doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4227684

2>Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer, Actual Innocence:Five Days to Execution, and Other Dispatches From the Wrongly Convicted (New York,
NY: Doubleday, 2000; New York, NY: Signet, 2001) (hereafter, “Actual Innocence”).

3>Arguments for and against the death penalty. (2000). Informally published manuscript, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA.

4>Huff, “Wrongful Conviction: Societal Tolerance of Injustice,” 4Res. in Soc. Probs. & Pub. Pol’y 99, 103 (1987) 

5>Id.; Radelet, Lofquist, and Bedau,“Prisoners Released from Death Rows Since 1970 Because of Doubts About Their Guilt,” 13 Thomas M.Cooley L.Rev. 907-66 (Michaelmas Term, 1996).

6>Furman, H. P. (2003). Wrongful convictions and the accuracy of the criminal justice system. The Colarado Lawyer, 32(9), 

7>American Civil Liberties Union, Capital Punishment Project. (n.d.). Race and the death penalty. Washington.D.C:

 

Analyzing the various causes and sources of stress in the modern society.

Everybody experiences stress in various times of their lives.There are various causes of stresses in every human's life. Physical environments have enduring characteristics that can influence whether or not stress is produced. All biological systems must self-regulate in the context of changing environmental demands. To understand our to such demands, we require knowledge of both individual processes and environmental features of the ecological niches we inhabit (Sells, 1963, 1969). Situations are the source of many stress-provoking stimuli that influence both psychological and physiological responses as we learn cognitive coping strategies. Stress emanates from individual appraisals of and reactions to actual environmental conditions (Baum, Singer, & Baum, 1982; Magnusson, 1982). The conditions of the physical environment weigh significantly in the stress and coping process. Certain environmental conditions are more capable than others of straining the adaptive resources of human beings.

              City living is a form of social stressor. The brains of people who live in cities react more strongly to stress than those who live in small towns and rural areas, a new study shows. The study is published in the journal Nature. It may help explain why mood disorders like depression and mental illnesses like schizophrenia are common in city dwellers than those living in less densely populated areas. Researchers in Germany and Canada recruited healthy adults who lived in large cities, moderately sized towns, or smaller, rural communities. Scientists recorded their brain activity as they tried to solve difficult math problems while being criticized for their poor skills. It's a test that creates social stress as people struggle, but fail, to prove their mental abilities. As they were stressed, people who were currently living in cities had more activity in an almond-shaped area of the brain called the amygdala than those who lived in towns or rural areas. People who grew up in cities also had an interesting response to the stress. Even if they were no longer living in an urban area, their brains showed higher activity in a region called the anterior cingulate cortex, which helps to regulate the amygdala, suggesting that the early-life environment helps to shape the brain's stress response in important ways."It's a stronger response of those areas that typically regulate fear and emotion," says study researcher Jens C. Pruessner, PhD, director of the Douglas Mental Health Institute at McGill University in Montreal. And he says it suggests "that living in big cities with many, many people surrounding you sensitizes you to respond more strongly to stress."

Psychological stress focuses on the individual's interpretation of the meaning of environmental events plus an appraisal of personal coping resources(Lazarus, 1966). Primary appraisal is the term used to describe the process of evaluation of the stressor. Personal factors influencing primary appraisal include general beliefs about self-efficacy or mastery, the centrality of goals/needs threatened by the stressor, and various dis-positional factors.(Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Launier, 1978). Three important implications of the psychological stress perspective are:

1> The individual's perception of environmental demands and personal coping resources is the critical variable in determining the nature of stress response.
2> Stressful situations are not uniformly aversive. Important personal and social mediators can ameliorate or enhance the effects of stressors.
3> Stressors will affect the individual in a host of ways in addition to the physiological impacts emphasized by Cannon and Selye.(e.g., nervousness, tension, anxiety)(see Baum, Singer, & Baum, 1982; Cohen et al., 1986; Fleming et al., 1984)


In addition to the traditional models of the stress process described in the previous sections, there have been several less encompassing models that significantly influenced environmental stress research. Patterns of stimulation as influenced by multiple features that are repetitive or express some underlying theme or symbolic meaning may contribute to an overall sense of coherence and thus reduce information levels (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982; Lynch, 1960).Scott and Howard(1970) have emphasized that not only do physical factors influence the characteristic activity levels of people, but sociocultural variables (e.g., multiple roles, work demands) can also produce stimulation overload. Crowding and noise can readily be incorporated into the stimulation load models since each stressor increases the amount of physical stimulation in an ambient environment(Hall, 1966; Kaminoff & Proshansky, 1982; Saegert, 1976; Wohlwill, 1974).Several studies reveal that persons under stress from noise, for example, do not perceive subtle social cues for distress(e.g., an arm cast, Matthews & Cannon, 1975) or cues in photographs indicating people in need of assistance(e.g., person falling off a bicycle, Cohen & Lezak, 1977). Because of attention focusing under stress, peripheral cues including information about the needs of other persons for help may not be perceived.
            
           
          Because individuals will vary in their sensitivity to various environmental demands, in the ways in which they appraise them, and in personal coping resources, stress will not invariably result when one or more aversive physical characteristics are present. Nonetheless, since stress is a function of environmental demands and individual coping resources, it behooves us to develop a more thorough description and analysis of the physical an social components of everyday situations that are likely to evoke stress and coping process.

References :
1> Ahrentzen,S.,Jue,G ,Skorpanich,M.A. , & Evans, G.W.(1982).School environments and stress. In G.W.Evans (Ed), Environmental stress (pp 224-255). New York: Cambridge University Press

2> Baum, A., &Epstein,Y.(Eds.).(1978).Human response to crowding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

3> Baum,A., &Singer,J.E (Eds.).(1982) Advances in environmental psychology (Vol.4) Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum

4> Cannon, W.B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York:Norton.
5> Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols,D., & Krantz, D.S(1986). Behavior,health and environmental stress. New York: Plenum.
6> Epstein, Y., & Karlin, R (1975) Effects of acute experimental crowding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5,34-53
7> Kaplan, H.B (1983). Psychological distress in sociological context: Toward a general theory of psychosocial stress. In H.B. Kaplan(ed.),Psychosocial stress (pp 195-266). New York: Academic
8> Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill


     

A person can be viewed as successful in more than one way, whether he has led a spiritual,contributor or escapist type of life.

       Success is defined as the accomplishment of an aim in one's lifetime.The essence of true success is what you make of yourself. It is the conduct of life that you develop, it is the character that you cultivate, and it is the type of person you become.Success in life is always a combination of hard work, luck and abilities.(Chidananda, 1997)

Achieving success spiritually is the ability to give up materialistic needs and attending to the needs of others or is the capability to inculcate faith and belief in a person. There are a lot of spiritual leaders in this world. Mata Amritanandamayi ( called amma for short ) is one among them. Amma is known to hug and bestow her unconditional love on people from all walks of life. Starting her spiritual practice from the small district of Parayakadavu (Kerala), Amma has become world-famous today and is known for her humanitarian activities across the globe.She is known to individually hug over 50,000 people in a day, at times, even sitting for as long as 20 hours at a stretch. It is said that she has hugged at least 21 million people in the past 20 years. In her case, she has achieved spiritual success by being a beacon of hope and a shoulder to cry on for these many people across the world."Our duty towards God is compassion and love towards the poor and needy" is something that she practices and preaches and is hence seen as a successful spiritual leader.

Another category of people see success in what they are able to give or serve a higher purpose in society. They have this constant sense of purpose to help in the betterment of society. For them, small things like feeding a poor man, or helping a blind person is as being as successful as anything else. People like Bill Gates for example. Even though he has earned billion of dollars and is rich beyond his dreams, he has donated over $8 billion to charity, in an effort to improve the state of people around the world..Also other people like Karl Rabeder, an Austrian businessman who founded the non-profit organization MyMicroCredit in 2009, which aims to reduce poverty in Central and South America. In February 2010, announced that he will be donating his entire fortune of over four million US dollars, including the profits from all of his properties, his car, and his businesses, to charities he set up in Central and South America. These people are willing to donate huge amounts of money in order to see the betterment of society and the lives of people they change. Henry Drummond rightly explained this when he said "You will find, as you look back on your life, that the moments that stand out are the moments when you have done things for others."

There also those who see success as achieveing unique goals like climbing mountains, doing bungee jumping or any other adrenalin pumping activity. These people are thrill seekers and are drawn to advenure. They measure success in terms of the most unique or most dangerous things they have done. One such person is Diego Bunuel. He spent four years travelling to 25 countries, trekking through war zones, and mixing it up in the world’s mega-cities. He is now journeying to the far reaches of the planet to discover its forbidden zones. For him, every war zone he covers, or every warlord he meets is another feather in his cap. Such people look back at their lives and see not money or spirituality but adventure and thrill. Helen Keller says that "Life is either a great adventure or nothing." All people who achieve escapist success, are those who want to look back on their lives and say they lived it to the fullest and that it was extraordinary in more ways than one.

          In the words of Bill FitzPatrick, founder of the American Success Institute, a successful person is “strong when toughness is required and, at the same time, patient when understanding is needed.” It is this kind of sound judgment and reasoning that sets the exceptionally successful people apart from the mediocre.

          
References :

• Chidananda, S. S. (1997). Success in life. 
• Amma: Healing the Heart of the World by Judith Cornell, (William Morrow & Company)
• Lesinski, Jeanne M. (2006). Bill Gates (Biography (a & E)).