Toxicity of Energy Drinks Essay Example for Free

Toxicity of Energy Drinks Essay The new millennium has ushered in a wave of synthetic, caffeinated high-energy drinks targeted at the youth market. Over the past 10 years, the consumption of caffeinated beverages intended to â€Å"energise† has increased significantly. Energy drinks were recently shown to comprise 20% of the total convenience store beverage market, with â€Å"Red Bull† and â€Å"V† accounting for over 97% of sales in this multimillion-dollar industry. 1 Increasingly, toxicity from caffeine overdose is being reported to hospitals and poisons centres. The main active constituents of energy drinks include varying amounts of caffeine, guarana extract, taurine and ginseng. Additional amino acids, vitamins and carbohydrates usually complete the list of purportedly beneficial ingredients. 2 The intended effects of energy drinks are to provide sustenance and improve performance, concentration and endurance. Manufacturers pitch their product to athletes, students and people in professions that require sustained alertness. These drinks are also commonly consumed at dance parties, which require sustained energy for prolonged activity into late hours. In this setting, they may also be combined with alcohol and recreational drugs such as ecstasy (MDMA; 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) or other amphetamines. Young adults and adolescents are particularly attracted to energy drinks because of effective product marketing, peer influence and a lack of knowledge of the potential harmful effects. 3-5 The high sugar content in caffeinated energy drinks is similar to other soft drinks and is known to contribute to obesity. 6Adverse reactions and toxicity from high-energy drinks stem primarily from their caffeine content. 7 The sympathomimetic effects of high-dose caffeine mostly explain the symptoms and hospital presentations related to energy drinks. There is little published literature on the extent and epidemiology of this problem. Indeed, a recent literature review on the effects of energy drinks in children and adolescents found only eight case reports on medical complications from energy drinks. 8 Our study was undertaken to obtain an understanding of the scope of consumption-related issues and toxicity from caffeinated energy drinks in Australia by analysing data from calls to the NSW Poisons Information Centre (NSWPIC) — the largest centre of its type in Australia, taking about 110 000 calls per year, which is 50% of all poisoning-related calls in the country. Methods We undertook a retrospective review at the NSWPIC. Data included calls providing advice to the general public and health professionals. Calls from New South Wales, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory are exclusively handled by NSWPIC from 6 am to midnight; an after-hours call-sharing system is in place with interstate poisons centres. Ethics approval was obtained from the human research ethics committee of the Children’s Hospital at Westmead.

HS2: Arguments For and Against the High-Speed Rail Lines

HS2: Arguments For and Against the High-Speed Rail Lines Georgiana Raluca Andrei Introduction With the rapid growth of the economy and rapid expansion of technology, there is the need for a development of infrastructure. HS2 is a proposed infrastructure project to build a high speed rail line from London to Manchester and Leeds, via Birmingham, to begin operation in 2026 and be completed in 2032. It was supported by the Labour Government after 2009 and has had the support of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government since May 2010 (Butcher in Parliament, 2015). HS2 will be constructed in two separate phases: Phase 1 from London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street and Lichfield with intermediate stations in West London (at old Oak Common) and at Birmingham Airport; Phase 2 from the West Midlands, splitting into two legs: an eastern leg to Leeds New Lane with intermediate stations in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire; and a western leg to Manchester with intermediate stations at Crewe and Manchester Airport. In total, the scheme is estimated to cost  £42.6 billion for the infrastructure, with a further  £7.5 billion for rolling stock. The information presented by Louise Butcher on (Parliament, 2015) offers a clear report about HS2 Phase 1 of the scheme. Supporters claim that construction of HS2 is urgently needed in order to deliver wider economic and regional benefits and to meet future demands. Opponents maintain that these demands are over stated and the same outcome can be achieved with other, cheaper means. Arguments for and against HS2 are based on competing ideas not only about what the country needs in terms of new or improved rail infrastructure, but about how (if needed at all) it should be delivered and what the benefits and costs are of the ideas put forward. The two sides fundamentally disagree with the other’s interpretation of the ‘facts and figures’ about the scheme. The case for The government believes that creating a high-speed rail line between London and North of England will produce numerous advantages to society. →Travel time One of the most important benefits is the time saving. It is expected that once the project finished, it will make a difference in the time spent travelling. For example, Leeds to Birmingham is slashed from 1 hour 58 minutes to just 57 minutes. The East Midlands hub at Toton is 19 minutes from Birmingham. Manchester to Birmingham more than halves from 88 to 41 minutes (BBC News Magazine, 2015). Also, it will improve productivity through savings to journey time. →Crowds Creating a high-speed rail line would provide less crowded trains and make the journey more comfortable. This will protect the economy growth and the quality of life , and although cheaper measures might be easier ( such as upgrading existing lines), that would provide a short-term fix and it’s not suitable for long-term. →Punctuality The government argue that the HS2 trains will â€Å"stick more reliably to their timetables than the average train.† ( BBC News, 2013). This is an important issue because the pasengers value being on time . →Boosting UK economy Creating the HS2 will provide various ways to boost the economy, offering the prospect of a sustainable growth and allowing prosperity to expand beyond south east England, rebalancing UK economy. It will generate  22,000 construction jobs in the next five years  and once the entire line is running  create 100,000 jobs (BBC News Magazine, 2015). It will improve the access to employment, will make relocation of business easier and will create opportunities for increased business, tourism and leasure activities. The wider economic benefits of a UK HSR network to wider West Midlands cities, towns and shire counties is expected to be  £5.3 billion over 60 years, while the London to Birmingham route alone is expected to boost Birminghams economy by  £1.23 billion, and towns and cities in surrounding counties by  £2.5 billion (GO-HS2, 2015) . →Good for the environment HS2 will reduce dependency on air and car travel, this way reducing CO2 emissions. High speed trains are powered by electricity, so their environmental performance will improve over time as more electricity comes from renewable sources. By reducing the time travel between cities in the north of England and Scotland, it will encourage people to switch from air to rail. The construction of HS2 requires less land than building a new motorway. Also, it has the potential to stimulate further the ongoing regeneration of Birmingham city centre and boost growth around Birmingham Airport and NEC. The case against →The final bill wrong investment? The expected cost of HS2 from London to Manchester and Leeds was originally  £33bn, in 2009 prices, but earlier this year, at the time of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill debate, the cost leapt to  £50bn, in 2011 prices. This excludes such things as localised infrastructure to connect with HS2, foot bridges and farm bridges to cross it. In addition, this does not include the Heathrow Link or any provision for changes to the scheme (Stop HS2, 2015). There are cheaper alternatives that would have the same effect as HS2 and will not cost as much, would be ready earlier and be better balanced in meeting needs across the whole country. →Demolition of homes and damage to rural England The most affected area will be the north of London’s Euston station. More than half of the homes affected are in or around Camden. Across the entire line more than 600 homes will be bulldozed and another 340 homes will becut off from their wider neighbourhood. Homeowners will get the market value of their property, plus 10% and moving costs Infrastructure supporting the line will be built on 250 acres of green belt land ( BBC News Magazine, 2015). HS2 threatens 350 unique habitats, 67 irreplaceable ancient woods, 30 river corridors, 24 Sites of Special Scientific Interest plus hundreds of other sensitive areas (Stop HS2, 2015). About 60 properties on the proposed phase 1 route are likely to experience levels of noise which will qualify for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations. The number of properties that may experience a noticeable increase in noise on the phase 1 route has been reduced since consultation by a third from 4,700 to around 3,100 ( BBC News Ma gazine, 2015). →Increased carbon emissions Opponents claim that few high-speed train passengers will transfer from air so the carbon emissions will not be reduced. Also, HS2 proposes to run trains at high speed which will need more energy than the existing Eurostar London-Paris trains – pushing up electricity and carbon consumption. It will use three times more energy than a normal inter-city train (HS2 Action Alliance, 2015). →Illusion of creating new jobs It’s been argued that HS2 will not actually create that many new jobs, most of them being associated with existing jobs within retail activity that have simply moved from other areas towards the new station. Over 70% of the jobs will be created in London, making London the central city. →HS2 will not benefit the ordinary traveller Building such an expensive train line would mean an increase in the train tickets. HS2 will only serve toincrease the price of train faresas train companies have to redistribute the costs associated with running on a line such as this (YouGov, 2015) Conclusion The Government is proposing to provide the capacity desperately needed across the UK through a new High Speed Rail Network. The new route will link London to Birmingham, then on to Manchester and Leeds forming what is known as the Y-Network. Eventually HSR trains will run to Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Construction of such an important project brings together people who support the cause and people who don’t. Both sides have important arguments to take into consideration when deciding which side to take. It remains a hotly contested public issue because particular individuals, groups and industries believe they benefit from HS2 while others consider that they lose out. Reference list Butcher , L. (2015) Railways: HS2 Phase 1 Commons Library Standard Note [online]. Available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN00316/railways-hs2-phase-1 ( accessed 1st of March 2015). BBC News Magazine (2013) HS2: 12 arguments for and against [online]. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159571 ( accessed 1st of March 2015 ). BBC News (2013) Quantifying the benefits of HS2 [online]. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22551178 ( accessed 1st of March 2015). GO-HS2 (2015) GO HS2 High speed rail [online]. Available at http://www.go-hs2.com/BenefitsOfHS2/EconomicImprovements.aspx ( accessed 1st of March 2015). Stop HS2 (2015) Stop HS2 [online]. Available at http://stophs2.org/facts ( accessed 1st of March 2015). HS2 Action Alliance (2015) Environment carbon journeys [online]. Available at http://www.hs2actionalliance.org/case-against-hs2/environment/carbon-journeys/ ( accessed 1st of March 2015). YouGov (2015) For and against: High speed rail [ online]. Available at https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/01/20/for-against-high-speed-rail/ ( accessed 1st of March 2015).

Essay --

You do know that milk comes from cows, goats, and other mammals. Though do you ever wonder what it goes through, before you buy it at a supermarket. Milk is used in so many ways. What it contains will amaze you. People have figured out how to contain it so it last much longer. The real amazing thing about any word you say like milk people think they know everything about it there is to know, but they have no clue. There is a history behind every word we use today, people don't look close enough. Since the 1800’s milk has been redefined. During the 1800’s people went on with their daily lives drinking milk believing they knew where it came from. Farmers believed that if you named your cows instead of giving them numbers they would produce much better. People got their milk from a farmer that owned cows. They would bring the cow door to door asking the customer if they wanted to buy it. If these people wanted milk they would come outside with a bucket or bottle to fill it up. Since the farmer had to milk from the side , cause they thought it was safer. They kept the cow clean and well taken care of , the people watched the farmer milk it. The farmers thought if the customers saw a ugly, dragging looking cow they would not buy the milk, cause the customer thought the milk would taste bad. Though in the city this was mostly impossible for the farmer. There was a middle man who would go around the city with a cart to sell milk to people. what the farmer and the customer did not know is that these peopl e were greedy. They sold the milk to the customer for a higher price for a profit. Middle men would also put half of the milk with half water. Though people actually knew where they got their milk from, th... ...teurizing milk, people invent a box. That would allow you to keep it out in the opening and you did not have to be refrigerated. Up until the world war 2 milk was pasteurized, and it was good milk people loved and enjoyed. All lot of farmers believed that this wasn't right to do and it was unfair. So like some farmers kenneth Peak of Claracok Dairy in California would refuse to have their milk pasteurized. Though others new that if they didn't put a stop to raw milk it would harm people and their kids. Straus decided since some people could not afford pasteurized milk he would set up stations. The end of the century came pretty quick and by then he had 12 stations set up N.Y. to pasteurize milk. At the time people used to let water flow by tanks of milk just to keep it cold. Around 1985 people tested pasteurizing but it failed and 5,770 people paid for it.

South and Southeast Asia Essay -- essays papers

South and Southeast Asia Introduction The region under scrutiny happens to be among the most impoverished countries in the world, though allowing for so much growth that is has made them among the fastest growing countries in the world. The region with all this potential is South and Southeast Asia, and the countries holding 40% of the world’s poor are Bangladesh, Thailand, Pakistan and India. How is it that South Asia has grown so much over the past decade with 35% of its men and 59% of its woman being illiterate? Or how is it that half a billion of the people in South Asia are living off less than a dollar a day? So much of the information I have found for this paper is hard to swallow, though I will try and tell it to you straight and in this sequence: 1. What is believed to be the beginning of the crisis that South Asia is faced with now? 2. Who is supporting growth and development in South Asia? 3. Through all this support, how much debt is being created? 4. What are individual weaknesses facing certain countries in South Asia? 5. Can these countries be of success in the long run? The beginning of the crisis Since July of 1997 Southeast Asia has been hit by an economic crisis of major proportion. The economic crisis was originally limited to Thailand’s financial sector, when the central bank of Thailand devalued its currency, the baht. Like so many other currencies the baht had been pegged to the all so valuable U.S. dollar to help ensure stability. Though because of the major success in the U.S. economy the dollar has been seen as strengthening, leading many investors to feel that the baht and many of the other currencies pegged to the dollar were overvalued. Because of this created concern many of the investors fearing an unstable currency chose to exchange it’s currency for dollars. As the confidence in the baht dwindled, companies operating in Southeast Asia scrambled to get rid of its currency as well. Thailand’s central bank was hoping that this devaluation would stop and eventually restore confidence in it’s currency, how would this happen of cours e? I would assume that Thailand was hoping for a lowering in the price of goods in dollar terms, which would make those products competitive in foreign markets. This in turn would attract new investments into the country. Though this did not happen, and a monsoon of loan def... ... from a larger standpoint while still keeping the topics small. I did this because currency is something that nearly every country has trouble controlling. Plus there are a lot of troubles that come with a collapsing currency, as far as market instability and fear of investing. This was just a few of the problems that effected every country used in this paper, every country that was spoken about was among the poorest countries in the world though still receiving recognition for being among the fastest growing countries in the world. That in it’s self is hard to explain; how would this happen to this specific region of the world. These are the types of questions that were attempted in this paper. The specific answers are not given in this paper however because I personally cannot answer them. But what it will take for these countries to succeed has been answered and the funding is there for them to do that. If the progress continues in the direction that all these countries are facing, it is possible for all these countries to survive and pull themselves out of poverty. Bibliography: www.worldbank.com www.state.gov/issues/economic/trade www.facts.com www.boi.go.th

Dealing with Learning Disabilities Essays -- Education Psychology Essa

Dealing with Learning Disabilities â€Å"He’ll know things one day, but not the next†. â€Å"She is seeing or writing words or numbers backwards.† â€Å"She has difficulty grasping simple concepts†. These are comments made by teachers who have classified certain students in their classroom as having the unfortunate burden of a learning disability. A learning disability is â€Å"a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations†(Metzger, 1983, p7). Students with learning disorders may exhibit difficulty learning in a number of ways. Such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia all contribute to learning disabilities. Students that suffer from visual, auditory or motor handicaps, mental retardation, or emotiona l disturbance endure these same learning disabilities, but are usually more severe. These select students with diverse handicaps may encounter barriers that obstruct their success in education. When such barriers occur, adaptive technology is the appropriate solution. Adaptive technology is available for students on all different levels with numerous diverse learning disabilities and has played an important role is assisting these students to develop necessary skills for their academic success. In the home, classroom, workplace, and community, adaptive technology is enabling individuals with disabilities to be more independent, self-confident, productive, and better incorporated into the mainstream (Kelker, 1997). Educational Encyclopedias define the technology of ... ...the potential psychological stress and possible negative social ramifications of having to rely continually upon others† (Raskind & Bryant, 1997). It is quite obvious to comprehend that adaptive technology has proved to be an effective tool for special education students along with any other individual with a disability. There is an adaptive piece of easily accessible technological equipment for any disability one is attempting to overcome. Such powerful tools within a learning environment offer numerous directions through which to reach special education students and to adapt the learning environment to the students’ needs. The adaptive technologies available within today’s educational arena have the ability not only to develop the skills of a disabled learner, but also to help a student in need attempt to receive thenormal, good quality education they deserve.

Psychological Perspective on Assisted Suicide

One of the most hotly debated topics going on now is the one concerning the ethics of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Nowadays with all the progress that the medical profession has gained, people who are terminally ill have more options, and there have been continued efforts to give them the â€Å"right to die† when they choose this option. I was interested in researching this topic because I think the debate has a lot to do with psychology, which I am very interested in. This dilemna has been hotly debated and I was open to seeing how this movement was progressing. Basically, in the beginning I was a proponent on this issue, and believed people should not be denied their wishes when they wanted to end their pain. However, I was open to learning more about the opposite stance and what the reasons for opposition were. It always seemed unusual to me that suicide was not illegal, but yet it was illegal to assist in one even with a consenting party. I wondered how this could be, and how people could deny people this right in unending pain. There never seems to be a prosecution of doctors who participate in these acts, even though they frequently go to court. I wondered why this occured and what the laws really said regarding this. I also wondered how people distinguished between forgoing medical interventions and actually assisting in the suicide. As I approached the research, my main questions were regarding opposers. I really did not know all the problems that could occur. Research about this brought to light many things that are not discussed in the media, although this is a highly publicized subject. I found that it is very difficult to bring the debate to an end because all the arguments are really just matters of opinion. Opposers and protestors have good arguments. No one really knows what would happen, so they just use opinions to predict it. Because of all the media attention, I will try not to discuss the many things that are already known. I found myself intrigued at what I didn't know, and found my views profoundly affected. After reading current articles about what was going on legally and about cases, reviewing the history of this topic, and reading books showing the two opposing viewpoints, I have made my conclusions. I will show how people are currently handling this and how they are being viewed. I will discuss the main arguments on both sides. Finally, I will show what I concluded from this and how my views have been altered by information that I did not know before. I will begin by explaining how the terms are defined. Euthanasia is taken from Greek roots and means â€Å"good death. â€Å"3 Active euthanasia is a direct and deliberate intervention to kill the patient. It is â€Å"intended to end the life of the competent, terminally ill patient who makes a fully voluntary and persistent request for aid in dying. â€Å"8 Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests the action, and it is involuntary if the patient is not mentally competent enough to make the right choice. Passive euthanasia is witholding treatment from a patient. A physician assisted suicide is when the patient does the actual act, but the physician provides either enough information or the means to do it. 8 One source defines it as a â€Å"desperate measure, justified only in exceptional cases where every effort has first been made to care for a dying person by other means. â€Å"4 The terms euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are usually used for the same thing and are not usually distinguished from one another. Usually the means of suicide is lethal doses of a poison such as pills, an injection, or gas. Motive causes euthanasia to be distinguished from murder, because its intent is merciful and is done out of kindness. The physician's intentions can make considerable difference in regard to how their act will be classified. The most common reason for a patient to want this aid is because of a terminal illness. Unbearable suffering has caused the person to become intolerant of the physical and/or emotional pain. The other reason is a physical handicap that is debilitating and the patient would rather die than live with it. Most people are able to cope with this, but in some cases it is impossible for the patient to do so. In ancient times, euthanasia was encountered often. However, suicide was condemned. During the sixteenth century, some people began to see it as more of a personal choice. It eventually became decriminalized, but assisted suicide and euthanasia are still crimes in most countries. 3 The introduction of powerful analgesics caused a rise in the interest in the â€Å"right to die† movement. It was advocated in the late 1800's, and has been a topic for debate since the early 1900's. Doctors have been helping patients die for centuries. Some cultures today have people that will stop eating and wait to die when they become seriously ill. 13 The â€Å"right to die movement† is encouraged by several factors. Modern technology has come along so as to extend human life. The fear of the dying process is of great concern to some people, especially when it accompanies physical and psychological suffering. Patients are becoming more in charge of their own fate and have more of a voice. Finally, there is concerns about the high health care costs. They cost more than 60 billion annually, and 1/3 of Medicaid payments go to patients in their last year of life. 13 Medicine's main goal has always been the preservation of life. Now, this is being challenged in an attempt to change it. The two sides of the issue are being debated. On one side are the people who think it is not a physicians place to kill a patient, because he/she should only help, not harm. The opposition thinks that suffering is the real harm. The debate comes at the point of the onset of the terminal illness, when it will be time to decide on the means. This is sometimes called the â€Å"Kevorkian moment. â€Å"2 Proponents give examples of people who could be helped, while opponents give counterexamples of people who may be harmed. There are many moral and legal considerations. The support for a physician's participation is increasing. According to opinion polls, about 60% of people in the U. S. are supporters. About 15% of physicians practice it when it is justified. 7 It is actually impossible to know for sure how much takes place because incidents are usually kept secret to avoid prosecution. Most people who have reported that they would consider it give reasons such as that they would not want to be a burden, would not want to live in pain, or would not want to depend on machines or others. The main argument for the support of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is that people should have the right to control their life and death, and should be able to end their lives when they wish if they are suffering needlessly. It is argued that it is a private choice and society has no right to be concerned. They usually portray it as a case of individual liberty. One source states that â€Å"euthanasia, if legalized, would be the ultimate civil liberty, since it would secure the freedom to determine and to control our own death. â€Å"8 Physicians must then decide if they are willing to take part in either directly killing the patient or by assisting the patient in suicide. The physician should follow the demands of the patient, even if it means killing them, because that would respect their wishes and the rights of the patient. Physicians treat patients with the purpose of restoring health. If the patient can't be restored to a reasonable level of living, it shouldn't be wrong to discontinue it. Euthanasia supporters often try to get sympathy by relating stories to make one feel like suicide is the only option in their case. The media has sparked a lot of interest, and continues to show stories like this. Simi Linton, psychologist, says, â€Å"I'm disturbed at how the media treats it, as: here are these poor folks; let's help them end their lives† (qtd. in 1). It makes it seem as if would be inhumane to deny anyone this option. Basically, it is the quality of life that is the main concern of the patient. They may feel that life is not worth living in their state. It would not be humane to insist that every means be taken to keep someone alive. A physician's main concern is to relieve suffering, so sometimes there is only one way to achieve that goal. At the time that efforts are no longer doing any good, the main concern is to make the patient comfortable and alleviate symptoms such as pain. 6 Drugs do not always get rid of all the pain, especially when it is excruciating. Sometimes a patient will be drugged into unconciousness with severe pain that cannot be controlled. 9 This does not seem like effective pain management to me. I don't believe people will be satisfied living in such a state as that. They would want to be put out of their misery. Legalization would cause many changes. It would give rights to the person who does it, rather than the person who dies. It is about the right to kill, rather than the right to die. 9 Physicians would need to be trained in more areas regarding this, such as information about medications and dosage, and about the mentality of the patient. They will need to gain expertise in understanding patients' motivations for requesting it, assessing their mental status, diagnosing and treating depression. The medical profession is developing greater expertise in managing terminal illness but would need to develop similar expertise in responding to requests for physician-assisted suicide. The debates over assisted suicide have forced clinicians to be more aware of what can be done to relieve suffering. Doctors are improving pallitive care and their own behavior. Patients are becoming more aware of their options. The problems associated with legalizing assisted suicide are usually not talked about when the proponents make their argument. The discussion of the potential for abuse, the ways it could be prevented or better helped are put on a backburner. The main argument against legaliziation is that human life is sacred, and it is not a human right to take it away. Some say that there is no need for suicide, because health care should resolve all problems and pain management has come a long way. Most people who commit suicide suffer from depression, so it is often debated whether this could be the reason for someone wanting assisted suicide. Often, when their depression is treated, the patient responds well, and would like to live. A regular physician cannot make the determination of whether a patient is suffering from depression. This is something that is difficult to diagnose in terminally ill patients. Just because a patient requests suicide, doesn't mean this will be an appropriate solution. Sometimes, a patient may even request suicide, but when the time draws near, they change their mind because it did not seem so imminent before. The will to request the suicide must be voluntary, but this decision is left up to the physician. How can a physician judge whether it is voluntary or not? It is also difficult to determine what terminal is. When people say that it should be reserved for people who are terminally ill, they cannot define it. It is used to mean someone whose death will occur in a relatively short time. Some people may say that if they will die in 6 months it is considered terminal, but it is difficult to determine exactly how long someone has to live. They may live much longer than that. A person could also be terminal who is in a vegitative state, but will live for years in that state with continued medicine. People cannot reach an agreement on what the definition of terminal would be, some even say old age is terminal. Marianne Smith, Program Development Director of the Death with Dying National Center defines it as â€Å"an illness in which there is no chance of recovery and that death is imminent. â€Å"15 Activists of euthanasia use the demonstration that suicide is the only means to control unbearable pain. Most pain is supposed to be able to be eliminated, or greatly reduced. Many people do not get enough pain control. 6 One reason is the underknowlege many physicians have about this, and that they are afraid the patient will become addicted. Also, too much pain medication can cause symptoms that may be worse than the disease was itself. One source says that â€Å"patients and physicians alike may be unaware of the options available in the medical system, including advances in pain control that could help patients but are not routinely provided. â€Å"3 There may be no solution to these problems, but some things can be done. Better health care education, more access to health care, and informing patients of their rights. 6 Everyone has the right to pain relief. Patients should get adequate health care, and not killed. Physicians argue that if good care of the dying is being provided, then a request for suicide would be rare. 4 Some patients may want to consider suicide, but are incapable of administering medicine. Some people may also lose their mental capabilities, and will be unable to request it. It is difficult to assess fairness in cases like these. Some people use a form of advance directive and make their request before deterioration occurs. It is hard to extend the same rights to all patients without causing abuse. If someone is unable to communicate their request, it would be frightening for someone to make that decision for them and to say that their life is not worth living, so we must kill them. There is great potential for abuse if it were to be legalized. Depressed people, elderly, and very frightened people would be greatly affected. People may feel pressured into giving up. Elderly are especially vulnerable to this. Now that there are more people living longer, this problem will increase. They may tend to feel they are a burden on their families, or are selfishly consuming resources. If a physician advocates it, they also may be swayed. People may also feel distrustful of the physician's advice. This may cause a hardship in getting appropriate care. 10 Legalization will only encourage more people to take part in it. It does not seem as if we would be ready for this to occur, because we are only just beginning to explore some realms of the medical world. It took a long time to figure out about adequate care for many patients and when is the right time to withdraw life support, so it would not seem that we would be ready for this step. The â€Å"slippery slope† argument is used by opponents, saying that legalization will lead to involuntary euthanasia. My own opinion is that if assisted suicide were legalized, we may not be as inclined to advance medical progress and knowlege. It would seem easier to just put the patient out of his/her misery. They may not use their experience to increase what we know about medicine and learn how to help the illness, or better cope with it. Proponents have said that euthanasia should be considered â€Å"medical treatment. † If this is so, there could be great potential for abuse. Then it may be more likely to be administered to people who cannot make the request. Some decisions that have gone to court say that assisted suicide is a constitutional right and that someone else can make the decision for the patient. If direct killing can be legalized by someone else, someone who is not competent could be euthanized without ever expressing that wish. It seems to be inevitable that patient are going to be killed without permission if legalization occurs, even with rules about consent. The main argument of how abuse of the practice could occur is called the â€Å"slippery slope argument. † It says that â€Å"even if particular acts of killing are sometimes morally justified with particularly pain-ridden patients, sanctioning practices of killing would run serious social risks of abuse, misuse and neglect. 3 The bad consequences of legalization would occur over time as this practice became more used. Another potential form of abuse lies in the fact that it would be cheaper to euthanize a patient than to continue medical treatment. It is thought that it could become a means of health care cost containment. Some of the main supporters of euthanasia are people concerned about lowering health care costs. 6 Religion has caused many people to debate it. Most churches are adamantly opposed to the idea of suicide. However, some Christians believe that God would not want them to suffer. 9 Although most religions and churches disagree with intentionally killing a patient, many people who hold this stand will allow the withdrawal of life support. It is believed that there is a difference between killing and letting die. Someone who is against euthanasia may agree with letting someone die who is being kept alive solely by life support that is not really helping them. 3 People feel that the intent in these cases is different. The more accepted approach does not involve killing. One interpretation of the difference shows that the intent is different because actively killing is aiming at death, and withdrawing support simply accepts that we are limited to help the dying and cannot reverse the process. 8 However, some peole believe that since death is the outcome no matter what, there is no moral difference between them. Another matter of intent distiction regards what is called the â€Å"double effect. † A physician will administer a pain medication to relieve pain, but knows that it may cause death. The patient would be in pain without it, but it may cause death if it is administered. It is usually believed to be moral if the doctor's intent is to relieve the suffering, and not to cause death. It is allowed if the death is foreseen but not intended, because it is the intent that makes it wrong. Although suicide is no longer a crime, giving assistance in it is, everywhere except for Switzerland, Germany, Norway, and Uraguay. In Australia, a law was passed that allows terminally ill patients to ask for assistance by injection or taking drugs themselves. 7 There is a debate about it because Parliament wants to overturn the statute, which is the world's only voluntary euthanasia statute. In the Netherlands, it is actually a crime, but it has been ruled that physicians may assist in death under certain conditions. Some of these are that the patient must be ruled competent, and two doctors must conclude that the patient has less than 6 months to live. 8 The United States has used them as an example to see what would happen if it were to occur here. They are having problems with it, mainly with abuse. The physicians there have reported that the main reasons people request it are â€Å"low quality of life, the relatives, inability to cope, and no prospect for improvement. Some sources show that people are requesting it for physical symptoms that it is almost ridiculou that they would go to such an extreme measure for. I think that the potential for abuse here may be great, because it is getting out of hand over there. People are becoming afraid to go to hospitals because euthanasia is becoming so commonplace. It now accounts for 15% of deaths. 1000 unconsenting deaths occur each year. 1. In 1994, the state of Oregon passed a ballot that gives limited physician-assisted suicide legality. This makes it the first in the nation to do so. A doctor must determine the patient has less than six months to live. A second doctor must decide that they are mentally competent and not suffering from depression. The patient must request it in writing with two witnesses, and then 48 hours before the doctor delivers the prescription the request must be repeated orally. 1 It must be a voluntary act. However, those jugements are left to the physician. So far, it has never been put into action. Other states are considering similar legislation, such as California which has proposed a law that is similar to the guidelines that the Dutch have adopted. Lawsuits in Washington State and New York were ruled by the 9th and 2nd U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide are unconstitutional. The legal fate will be determined by the Supreme Court. In 1990, the decision of Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health resulted in people having the right to avoid unwanted medical treatment, including food and water. 5 It recognized the right to terminate unwanted medical treatment even when death would be the result. 14 People often use the Constitution as a basis for argument. The 14th amendment prohibits the state from depriving â€Å"any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. † So to deny a dying patient medical assistance when requested is to â€Å"threaten this patient's request for help is judged denial of constitutionally protected due process. â€Å"4 As the courts were in session to hear a case about whether terminally ill people have a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide, demonstrators sang and picketed outside a Supreme Court building. The emotions of the rights issue has been compared to that of abortion. Both of these issues dig into whether we have the right to choose such personal issues. People can feel very strongly about the issues of mercy killing, whether they oppose or support it. The lack of laws cause people to avoid prosecution for assisting in a suicide. Kevorkian has escaped prosecution because there is not a state law prohibiting it, according to a Michigan judge. 9 People are afraid that activities such as his would become widespread if assisted suicide were legalized. His actions have been opposed not because of the assistance, but because he had no real relationship with his patients and had not given them any kind of clinical evaluation. Many were also not terminally ill. 3 It seems to show what is lacking in the medical sysytem, or what could become of it. Every case of assisted suicide is not convicted or prosecuted, even in states that make it illegal. However, the fact that there are many landmark â€Å"right to die† cases, shows that the law is commited to the prohibition. However, the procedures are not described as killing. If this were the case, the act would have to be justified similar to killing someone out of self defense. 4 It is hard to define the conditions that there must be in order to make it legal, because there is so much that we do not know. For euthanasia to be ethical, there must be certain guidelines. The person must be a mature adult, and has been shown to be mentally competent and willing to make the decision. Some medical help will have already been given, and it should seem that the fight is hopeless. 9 Many organizations have beliefs on this and they try to educate the public on euthanasia and what their views are. I contacted Marianne Smith, the Program Development Director of the Death with Dignity National Center. 15 She explained to me in e-mail how the organization feels about euthanasia and what they do to educate the public about it. The organization is working toward better health care for paients. She feels that assisted suicide should be legal, but that â€Å"physician-assisted dying should be the response of last resort,† and â€Å"when all other options fail to relieve unbearable suffering, when the patient is acting on his or her own initiative, is not clinically depressed, and is capable of administering the medication personally. The people who could be elgible are â€Å"only terminally ill, competent adults with decisionmanking capacity. † I also asked whether euthanasia could be avoided with adequate pain medicine. Her response was that â€Å"Physicians, medical associations and hospices all have stated that not all pain can be controlled. † Their view, which is one I encountered a lot, is that the medical professionals have not been trained adequately in pain management. Regarding the issues of potential â€Å"slippery slope† abuse, she says that physician's aid in dying is more common than people realize, and legalization would just make it happen openly, instead of secretly. However, the state regulation should provide strict guidelines and penalties for violations. I think that it is hard to make sure that the decisions are correct, so it should be carefully thought out. We are dealing with a very serious issue, which is death. It should not be an easy decision to make or to carry out. Becaue death is the consequence, the decision to kill oneself, and carrying it out should be very difficult and carefully thought out. This would help ensure that people have thought about it enough and know that this is the best decision. I don't know how a solution can be thought of to deal with the debate, but things such as more health care education and informing patients of their rights should be a consideration. I hope that if legalization ever were to take place, that they would carefully restrict who qualified for euthanasia. After all my research, most of my questions have been answered. It is difficult to come to a conclusion because there is no right or wrong answer. I don't know how anyone can determine what should be done. Who can put a price on life and say who has the right to die? The basic choice is whether to let doctors help people die, and if so, how? I have found many great arguments either opposing or protesting this issue, which has led me to my final conclusions. When I began this paper, I dived into it thinking that I was going to condone the idea of assisted suicide. I knew I could convince someone that it should be the moral and legal thing to do. I could not imagine a life without the ultimate choice or having to endure great suffering. I was going to defend this side, but also show the opposing side. Once I got into the research, I found many facts that I had not known before about why it has not yet been legalized. Many questions and opinions showed me that there were many things I had not even bothered to think about before. What a surprise to me that I could begin a project as a supporter, and then turn around my views. I now see where the opposers are coming from. There are just too many problems and considerations to think about before this could ever happen, and there are alternate solutions. I cannot say that this has given me a complete turn in the opposite direction, but I am definitely leaning toward the opposing side except in extreme circumstances when nothing could ever help the patient.

The Ethics of the Media

The purpose of the media has become an ongoing question since the large amount of conflicts between the consumer and media. Why is the original purpose of the media so damn hard to figure out? It is time to confront this issue instead of blowing it off by saying, â€Å"We can never change the media, so why bother? † What kind of chickenshit statement is that?! If there are so many people with so much power, surely one of them realizes the downward spiral of the ethics of the media. I feel my sole purpose of this paper is to tell everyone my ideas and viewpoints on censoring the media. Ooooooo, censor. What a bad word that is when used in the same sentence with media. So many people believe censorship is a bad thing, but there is no other solution in stopping the â€Å"bad press. † When I sit back and look at the stories about stories that are bad and offending to someone, I realize something needs to be done. The media is out of control. True, there are many informing and needed stories, but, my god, how many times a day to we need to hear and read about how much money O. J. Simpson has to pay the family of Ronald Goldman? We, as consumers, need to sit back and ask ourselves, â€Å"What was the point of hearing or reading that story? Back to the censor issue. I, as an aspiring journalist, do not believe in total and complete censorship of the media, but also, as an aspiring journalist, I am embarrassed of some of the stories that are run, for instance, when the crime scene photos of Jon-Benet Ramsey were run in Globe magazine. Was there not anyone, an editor, a writer, or even a custodian at Globe who thought, â€Å"Uh, oh. These photos may get us into some trouble. † Was there not a single sole who had enough ethics to try and stop these pictures from being printed? This is where censorship comes in. If I could do anything in the world, I would first, stop world hunger, and second set up some guidelines and laws that the media must obey. Guidelines such as, no digging through peoples trash and no peeking in windows. Of course, we know that by law, there is to be no peeking in windows, or over fences, but there is no one at the editors desk to implicate these laws. There is supposed to be someone there to prevent these stories from running, but remember, their paycheck depends on how many copies are sold or how high the ratings are. This â€Å"censor person† needs to have a set wage. If there was someone to stop these types of occurrences, half of my problems with the media would be taken care of. This may sound like a lame solution, but we need to start somewhere. Obviously this is not a complete solution to these problems with the media, so the next step would be to start using the editors for weeding out the stories that are not giving some type of information that the consumer wants and needs to hear or read. This is also easier said than done. This solution also brings up questions like, how does the editor know what stories the consumer wants to hear or read about? That is the responsibility of the media. Let them take polls and give every effort to find out what we want. Journalism will only survive if it establishes a more valuable and clearly defined mission, (Morality of Mass Media, Ellen Hume. ) I could write a book about all the things I want to see changed in the media before I become a part of it, but I will not. There should be a line drawn so that the media can be punished for their wrongdoing. Many people agree that there should be a line drawn and like it or not, that line is called censorship. Our founding fathers did not want censorship on the media, but they probably did not think that the media would be doing such a crummy job. I do not want to say that all media is doing a bad job. Overall, they are doing a fairly good job, but there is still a large amount of dirty press that needs to be cleaned up.