The right to die

The right to die is a very serious area to talk about. This is involving being killed on purpose due to physical pain, depression, feelings of lonesomeness, loss of hope, and just people giving up. The right to die has two very convincing sides but i think the right to die needs to stop, and nobody should ever be allowed to take their own life. 

People should never be killed on purpose. The right to die is a very serious thing and i think people just don't enjoy their lives but what they don't realize is that they need to be thankful for being in this world even though something has changed immensely. By doctors giving options that involve people taking their own life should be banned. Their should be no such thing as people taking their own life because something is wrong with them or they don't want to be here because by people dying, it can not only change you but it may also change the people around you.

The right to die gives people a way out if the patient feels as if her life doesn't mean as much as it once did. By people being allowed to take their own life may be the best choice, in moderation. By giving people the power to take their own life it can give people that sense of relief. Their would be no need to suffer and no need to be depressed anymore.

The right to live in my opinion is a gift. A gift that is a one and a million chance. I don't believe in someone being allowed to take their own life. The reason for that is because life is something that should never be taken for granted. People need to start living their life without depression, and always hating on their life eve if their in their deathbed because once your gone your gone, and nobody likes to hear that someone has passed away.

In conclusion, their should be no reason whatsoever to allow a person to take their own life. It may cause instability in the family, depression for other people, and maybe even another reason for another person to do the same thing. The right to live on the other hand is much more grateful. The right to live means so much and everybody is so lucky to have a life which is why nobody should ever give up and take the easy way out by taking their own life. The option to take your own life needs to be stopped and never thought about again. 

Alex Petra

  

The Right To Die

The topic of whether or not people have the right to die goes back over 2000 years ago. This issue is highly controversial and definitely has more of an individual level that has yet to be understood by many. Each and every scenario  is different and given certain situations and conditions, opinions can vary. This issue is talking about physician assisted suicide where a doctor is the one that provides the euthanasia and the patient is killed quietly and peacefully. There is another way to look at this topic as a whole and that is suicide of another nature, where the individual takes their own life without the help of anyone and most of the time it isn’t peaceful at all. 

On a television show named “Dr.Oz”, they hosted a “Right to Die Debate” where people were invited to share their stories and opinions on the topic. Many seemed to be in the middle, where they considered certain circumstances and how the individual that wanted to end their life was feeling. This seems to be the most reasonable approach to a topic like this because it considers all the other variables before coming to a conclusion. A woman by the name of Dana (last name was not given) suffered from degenerative neuromuscular disease that made her unable to move any part of her body other than her head. She could not bathe her self, brush her own teeth, she needed to be fed, and she couldn't provide her children with the proper attention and care that they required. She is bed ridden almost 99% of the day and knows that her future won't be full of dignity and prosperity because of her current condition and lifestyle. This leads her to want to end her life and stop the suffering she is currently going through, so that her children can learn to move on and live happier lives, while other believe that she should continue on with her life no matter what pain she's going through.

One side of this argument believes that our sole purpose as human beings is to help prolong life and make sure that people live as long as they can. They believe that no matter what pain one is going through, they should continue on with their life and they shouldn't be able to have the choice to end it or not. The other side believes that someone should have the choice to end their life or not because they are the only ones that truly know what they are going through and if committing suicide is the right decision for them or not. They believe that they should have the choice to do what they want and end their life when they desire to do so. The first side says that there is a lot more to consider and that someone can't end their life without taking into consideration the lives and health of the rest of their family. They also have to consider the financial aspect of it and think about how if they leave this world, their children or family members might not be able to continue on the way of the life they were used to. 

I believe that people have the right to die and should be able to end their lives when they want to by means of physician assisted suicide. Nobody other than themselves knows what they are truly going through and the amount of pain they have to endure on a daily basis. Some say that people drive themselves to assisted suicide not because of the pain they are going to through physically or mentally, but the situation they are currently in financially as well. This includes, being in poverty, not meeting the required income, or being burdened by debt. If this were the case, then I believe it is wrong to turn to suicide but it is not. One of the main reasons that people choose to end their lives is because for once, they would like to take control and choose their path. They didn't choose to be in the current condition that they are in and want a way out because their future doesn't include living a life full of dignity. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=warCR3I88X8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8wKen-dQ7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em18TbejAVI

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a6frw7CYrQA/TzclMdyN1xI/AAAAAAAABPA/-mVlHGZkwRs/s1600/euthanasia.jpeg.gif

Should prostitutes be allowed to operate brothels in Canada?

Recently in Canada the Supreme Court has made the decision to review the legal rights of sex workers to work in brothels, hire body guards and drivers. As it stands today it is legal for prostitutes to work in brothels but illegal to proceed with street prostitution. Prostitution as a whole isn’t illegal but as I have learned through many new articles that a lot of activities that involve prostitution are banned. Brothels in Canada are seen to be “the safest way to sell sex is for a prostitute to work indoors in a location under her control”. This was stated during the ruling of the legalization of brothels by the judges. For this reason some provincial governments have made prostitutes operating brothels legal. These brothels are used for the protection of these prostitutes and allow them to carry out their jobs in a legal environment. The final ruling of issue will now be Canada wide as this appeal was by the Supreme Court.

During the ruling over the legalization of brothel houses and the legal rights to allow there to be body guards and drivers for prostitutes, there were actual and former prostitutes present to argue their side. These prostitutes have felt that the government has been disrespectful towards them and their profession. Although, in Ontario with the legalization of working in brothel houses, hiring body guards and drivers there has been some relief. Valerie Scott, a former prostituted has felt relieved in a way that “[they] are now brought into society” and “almost full citizens”. The prostitutes don’t understand why their safety matters less than other individuals in the province. These prostitutes believe that brothel houses will provide a place of safety to carry on with their job, just like most Canadians have safe work areas. 

            While reading any articles about this situation I have found it very interesting to look at both sides. These articles have provided me with a lot of useful knowledge to come up with my own opinion about this topic. I must say that in the beginning I was set with my own opinion but as I was reading articles there were situations and ideas brought up that I didn’t even take in to account when I first built my own opinion. An opinion that I have come across that also finely states my opinion is one from the Prime Minister Stephen Harper. As he has stated and I firmly agree with is that “prostitution is bad for society and harmful to communities, women and vulnerable persons”.

In my opinion I believe that prostitutes shouldn’t be allowed to operate brothel houses in Canada to carry out their jobs. These brothel houses promote prostitution which I believe is very harmful to society. Prostitution demoralizes women as the idea that you can purchase a women comes along with these prostitutes and brothels. Safety of every human being in Canada is very important although in such a case I believe that the prostitutes should know the dangers of their occupation as they chose this type of work. Making brothels illegal in Canada will be to protect society and the morals of women and some men. This law is not to add extra risks in this field of work but unfortunately won’t make it any safer.

 Here is a link to a CNN article:

 http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/americas/canada-ontario-legalizes-brothels

 

Gun Ownership

Does gun ownership cause crime or deter it? This is a question that can easily be argued back and forth for many different reasons as well as points of view. After reading a few articles about town that make it mandatory for home owners to own firearms, I have proposed a new question for myself:

Should it be a right to own a firearm, or is it a privilege? 

There are two sides to the argument of whether guns should be kept in a household or not, there are the people who believe it should be mandatory; and the people who don’t. First off I looked at those whom held the opinion of having guns in their possession, as well as everyone else as well. It is clear to see that for these people guns provide the sense of security as well as stop crimes from happening; at least they seem to think. The studies in the articles did show that fewer robberies had taken place, but the laws have not been in effect long enough to serve as evidence for this specific case. In many cases this gun law has been placed to prove a point in many towns. An example of this is a clip taken from an article in the Vancouver sun stating that the people in Georgia are “largely seeking to make a point about the right to bear arms after a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that left 26 children and educators dead.”  From this it is easy to conclude that many people feel that by having a gun on their possession, they will be safer from society and whatever may come to them.  After looking at the opinion of those whom would like it to be mandatory, I looked at those who do not. The majority of opinions I saw stated that more crimes would be provoked as well as accidental deaths and shootings. 

Read more:  (article referenced in first paragraph (Georgia) ) http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Georgia+town+makes+ownership+mandatory/8184764/story.html#ixzz2PuoT8bd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HBISLpVkbo

About 50 seconds into the link posted above, you will see a woman at which appears to be at a kitchen table in her home. The woman is at first examining a gun as if it is a foreign object, and then it proceeds to startle her when the gun goes off. This is an example in my opinion of why it should not be mandatory for all home owners to have a gun in their possession.  For one thing, it is clear that not everyone will understand how to properly use a gun, nor know when to use it. Nowhere in any article had I read was anything mentioned about free training on how to use the firearm that they are being forced to own. On top of this, even if you could pay to obtain lessons, not everyone would be up for this costly expense. Yes, the mandatory ownership of guns may prevent crime such as break-ins, but the accidental use and purposes of the gun will soon be abused. Without having people properly trained, gun use will become carried away and far too many problems will occur.