Euthanasia

Running Head: SHOULD DRUGS BE LEGALIZED Comp II Drugs: Should Their Sale and Use Be Legalized Arnold Heningburg Palm Beach Atlantic University Instructor: Heather Patton Drugs: Should Their Sale and Use Be Legalized? In the last 50 plus years, the support of legalization of drugs has been a very hotly argued topic in the United States society and the world. Many believe that “street drugs” should be legal and everyone should have the choice of using them if they desire. After the introduction of these street drugs, (some that were legal for medicinal purposes), they had to be banned in society because people were abusing them.

Many of these drugs now known as illegal substances were considered legal and were manufactured and created by chemists, and at some point were used for medical reasons. Unfortunately, due to many detrimental effects of prolonged use that caused human beings to become sick or die, these drugs were deemed dangerous and made illegal by the government. William Bennett’s “Drugs: Should Their Sale and Use Be Legalized” goal was to tell the general American public or the communities know how important it was to uphold the countries current drug policy.

The beginning of Bennett’s statement started by saying, “The issue I want to address is our national drug policy and the intellectuals” (Bennett, William). He was particularly addressing our nation about the danger of making these drugs legal. Bennett wanted everyone to know that he undoubtedly was on the side of keeping and imposing the ban on making narcotics illegal. Bennett’s article seems to be motivated by the desire to confirm his support for the current U. S. national and international policies regarding narcotics. .”

Bennett’s purpose was to win over those individuals who were not sure and those who were opposing the nations drug policy, by sharing where he stood on the issue of the nations drug policy. In the article that was written by Elliott Currie which was called “Toward a Policy on Drugs”, Currie maintained that illegal drugs are an deep-rooted problem for law enforcement agencies, therefore the only resolution that could aid in resolving the problem is by seeking the views or ideas of the public on how the police and the court would take action in reducing the impact of use and sale of illegal drugs in the community and society.

Curie argued that by using the free sell approach it would advocate making laws less restrictive on drugs, as well the law being less discriminating of drug users. This would mean that the government ‘s ban on illegal imports would be downgraded, which would also cause the drug users not to be treated as criminals and not being punished for their illegal activities. Currie felt that this approach has been proven effective in some of the European countries like Netherlands, where they have legalized the use of small amounts of marijuana.

He also argued that decriminalization and deregulation are not the definitive resolution to the deteriorating drug condition, but could significantly lessen the unscientific and cruel methods currently used to battle the use and sale of illegal drugs. Currie contended that it has proven and studied that there is a correlation between the prevention of drugs and the existence of crimes and violence in communities. His contention was that if illegal drugs would be made legal then it would be safe to assume that the incidence of drug-related crimes will decrease and eventually lead to the eradication of drug problems.

Although, he did contend that people should not exclusively depend on this type of approach, since there are other factors and complication implicated that cannot be addressed by this approach. In my opinion, legalization of drugs will cause an increase in drug problems and in crime. The reason I state this is that while dealing research and reading the journals and articles I found that many experts agree that illicit drugs are addictive and dangerous.

Those that want to legalize can admit this, but contend that if we legalized them we would have less of a problem because by making illegal drugs legal less people would consume them and therefore by legalizing it and making it accessible people would be less likely to become addicted because they would use drugs more moderately or some may just stop using drugs altogether, since it is available if they ever did want to use, comparing it to those that don’t use cigarettes or alcohol because it is legal to use.

But as I read different research and journals I found that the message from history is that periods of careless controls are accompanied by increased drug abuse and that when there is strong drug control, there is less drug abuse. References Barnet, Sylvan, Bedau, Hugo, Contemporary & Classic Arguments, A Portable Anthology, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005. Caulkins, Jonathan P. and Haijing Hao (2008). Modeling Drug Market Supply Reductions: Where Do All the Drugs Not Go? Journal of Policy Modeling. 30(2), pp. 251-270, DOI: 10. 1016/j. olmod. 2007. 04. 003. Hartnett, Edmund, Deputy Chief and Executive Officer, Narcotic Division, Drug Legalization: Why it Wouldn’t Work in the United States, New York City Police Department, New York [FN1] Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, U. S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC U. S. A. May 2003, www. DEA. gov; David Corcoran, Legalizing Drugs: Failures Spur Debate, New York Times, November 27, 1989; Morton M. Kondracke, Don’t Legalize Drugs, The New Republic, June 27, 1988

Most people in North America die what may be called a bad death. One study found that ‘More often than not, patients died in pain, their desires concerning treatment neglected, after spending 10 days or more in an intensive care unit’” (Horgan). The word euthanasia is the opposite of bad death in that its Greek origins of eu (good) and thanatos (death) have it meaning good death.  The media attention dedicated to Dr.  Jack Kevorkian, the “death doctor,” in the 1980s has given rise to some interesting questions and moral dilemmas concerning the right to die.   Jack Kevorkian made use of suicide machines, rigged contraptions that would deliver a death blow, to his patients that recommended them.

Basically, euthanasia is the mercy killing of an individual who has a terminal illness and who might be in considerable pain or have no quality of life.  It can take two forms.  Passive Euthanasia is simply denying the patient lifesaving treatments.  Examples of this can be the removal of feeding tubes or breathing tubes.  Active Euthanasia is, as the name implies, an active way to put a suffering individual to death.  It may include administering lethal doses of painkillers or toxins to the individual.  One definition of physician assisted suicide which combines both type of euthanasia and therefore has been dubbed ‘voluntary passive euthanasia (VPE) is “A physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (e.g. a prescription for lethal dose of sleeping pills, or a supply of carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that they can easily terminate their own life (Robinson). Recently morals and ethics have come into conflict over this issue.  Is the right to die inherent in each individual?  What role does dignity play?  Is the quality of life more important than the sanctity of life?

The majority of people look to answer these questions from their own personal experiences.  Those who have watched love ones die long and painful deaths will usually wish to avoid those ends themselves.  When death is imminent, suffering for a few extra days spent in pain or even unconscious or unaware of one’s surroundings seems a futile and even cruel punishment to inflict upon oneself or a loved one.  Others fear that the depression and pain experienced by the dying person are clouding their decision-making abilities. However, personal feelings are the least likely to be validated because everyone’s personal feelings and view differ.  Therefore, other levels of the moral and legal hierarchy must be considered.

Many attempt to resolve this dilemma through religious avenues.  Religion as a basis for legal decisions is not uncommon.  Legally, the church and state must remain separate, but many exceptions have been made.  A moment of silence in school can be used for prayer.  Member of certain religious denominations may refuse medical treatment such as vaccinations for their children.  Certain individuals are not required to swear on the Bible in court, and some religious groups are even allowed controlled and illegal substances for use in religious services.  Clearly precedence has been set for breaching or at least blurring, the line between legal and moral. Most devoutly religious individuals believe that taking the life of another is immoral under any circumstances.  They believe that only God can give and take life. Clearly they view physician-assisted suicide as murder.  Doctors who do so are playing God, which is considered a sin.

From a medical standpoint, doctors are often in the middle of this debate. As physicians, they are extremely knowledgeable about the pain and suffering associated with terminal diseases and injuries.  They may feel personally saddened at this deterioration of a patient that they have come to know.  However, the doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath in which they have sworn “first, do no harm.”  At this point, they possible feel conflicted between their professional duty and their personal feelings.

Legally, taking one’s own life is suicide and taking another’s life is murder. Wikipedia defines murder as “the premeditated unlawful killing of one human being by another through any action intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm” (Murder). This definition, doctors who take the life of a patient, even one who is suffering horrible and certain to die, is guilty of murder.

Thus, the question of should physician-assisted suicide be legal is certainly complex.  Public opinion polls show that the international public is generally supportive of euthanasia.  According to a Gallup poll in 1997, 57% of people are in favor and 35% are opposed in the US.  In Canada, 76% are supportive with that number rising to 80% in Britain, 81% in Australia and 92% in the Netherlands (Reed, A12).

The right to die is just one of the many choices that have come under the legislative domain.  Roe v. Wade gave the choice of abortion to women.  However, this right is now in jeopardy.  It seem that the US government is afraid to give choices about personal life decisions to the American public out of fear of religious backlash.  This has led to doctors fearing to provide this humanitarian aid out of fear of legal backlash in the form of lawsuits or even prosecution.

Sue Rodriguez was the center of a high profile terminally ill case in Canada.  Suffering from ALS, she publicly challenged all opponents of the right to die with “Whose life is it, anyway.  Her doctor helped her commit suicide in the presence of a Canadian Member of Parliament. Neither was prosecuted (Robinson).  It is very hard to argue with the pleas of a dying woman in this situation.  However, the recent case of Terry Schiavo, in which the family had to make an interpretation of an incapacitated woman’s desires, is less cut and dried.  Human greed and hatred can interfere with just decision making and this case clearly divided America.

One way to ensure that an individual’s own personal wishes are carried out is through a living will.  In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that every individual has the constitutional right to control his or her own medical treatment and that doctors, nurses or any professional staff must follow ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of the ill individual’s wishes.  The personal position of the doctors and the family cannot override a living will (Robinson).

Unfortunately, 67% of people do not have a living will (Robinson).  In absence of such a document, society is forced to the original question:  Should physician assisted suicide be legal?  Yes, it should.  First of all, the majority of the public believes that it is the right and just thing to do.  Next, legal precedents of the importance of choice in similar situations such as abortion have already been established in court.  Third, even if patients are depressed or in pain, they are still dying. The United States Justice system validates the choices of depressed individuals every day.  If a depressed person makes a choice to commit a crime, that choice is validated by an arrest, conviction and possible prison term. Prolonging their life under these circumstances is cruel and unusual punishment.  Doctors can choose as well.  Millions of people rely on doctor’s choices every day.

The United States should not strip individual choice from its citizens. Citizens should be able to make the choice and then live (or, in this case, not live) by the consequences.  Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States.  This way it can be documented and cases like Sue Rodriquez and Terry Schiavo will not have to dominate the media but can rest in the peace that they deserve.

Works Cited

1. Horgan, John. “Right to Die.” Scientific American. May 1996.
2. Murder.  Wikipedia. Retrieved 19 July 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
3. Reed, Christopher.  “Oregon Tackles Mercy Killing.” Globe and Mail.  June 27, 1997: A12.
4. Robinson, B.A. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide.  Ontario Consultants on Religious
5. Tolerance.  January 19, 2006.  Retrieved 19 July 2006 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm

Differing Scholarly Views on the Euthanasia Situation People in Canada are diagnosed with terminal illness’ every day. They know when they are going to die and often suffer until then. Why can’t patients diagnosed with a terminal illness be given the option to be euthanized? It would allow such patients to die painlessly and peacefully instead of having to suffer. While currently illegal in all but five areas of the world, assisted suicide and euthanasia are quickly becoming a more prevalent topic globally with more and more countries looking at making the move to legalize the acts.

It has been legalized nationally in countries such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium while also being legalized in the states of Oregon and Washington in the United States of America. The article from the New England Journal of Medicine, Redefining Physicians` Role in Assisted Dying by Lisa Lehmann, uses the state of Oregon as a basis for much of her research and probing into both sides of the argument behind euthanasia.

Margaret Somerville, a world renown ethicist and academic known for some of her controversial views, also gives her own insight into the topic in the article Legalized Euthanasia Only a Breath Away, published by the Globe and Mail. Somerville bases much of her argument around personal opinions and strong beliefs. I will examine the merits and proposals brought forth by each author and compare them to each other. The contrast between these two papers is quite evident in ways of structure and delivery of information.

In Somerville`s article, she establishes early on that, morally speaking, assisted death is a blatant disregard for the sanctity and respect for human life. She even goes as far as to call it “unconstitutional”. When describing the people who stand on either side of this argument of legalizing euthanasia, she says, “…it comes down to a direct conflict between the value of respect for human life, on the one hand, and individual rights to autonomy and self-determination – the value of `choice`- on the other. She establishes the two positions one has to choose from in the argument over this topic and leaves little room for change on either side. This entire argument being based solely on her opinion and giving no facts to back either of the positions makes it very biased in favour of keeping euthanasia illegal. In Somerville’s article, she shows the availability of the process in Oregon and how it is very helpful to those who seek it out. Somerville believes that no one should have control over whether another human lives or dies.

That is why she believes euthanasia should be an available option to terminal patients. One of the driving points that Somerville delivers is that, “research shows that the most likely reasons people want assisted suicide/euthanasia are fear of being abandoned – dying alone and unloved. ” Without any source cited for the research, it brings the validity of the argument into question. It seems more of a popular opinion twisted into a fact for the purpose of supporting an argument, especially after comparing Lehmann’s article is read.

She quotes from the thirteenth annual report from Oregon`s Death with Dignity Act that, “Most (patients) say that they are motivated by a loss of autonomy and an inability to engage in activities that give their meaning” as the primary reason for considering euthanasia in Oregon. It also cites lack of ability to control pain being one of the least common reasons for euthanizing as well, due in regards to the leaps and bounds modern medicine has made in palliative care in contrast to the 60’s. Having an element of control over the time one dies and how it happens is something that is understandable for many terminal patients to desire.

Knowing when they are supposed to die makes it very hard for terminal patients to fully enjoy any life experiences because they constantly remind themselves of how little time they have until their death. This statement brings doubt to the “research” that Somerville uses to fortify her stance against assisted death, especially with a lack of a credible source into said research. Within Lehman’s article, she states some main objections to euthanasia commonly used by critics. One is that having an option to end one’s life will reduce the quality of palliative care.

But that is not the case in Oregon. Lehman’s research has shown that overall spending and patient ratings on palliative care have consistently risen in the thirteen year period that euthanasia has been legal. Another popular objection is that practitioners of euthanasia are working on a “slippery slope” and that the process for selecting euthanasia candidates will someday be expanded to accept patients with nonterminal illnesses or even non-voluntary euthanasia. But within Oregon, Lehman describes how a patient must go a long process before actually being euthanized.

A panel of medical professionals considers many different factors of the patient such as diagnosis, pain tolerance, depression, state of mind, and many others. This process takes at least 2-4 weeks. After taking all the factors into consideration, the patient will be given the panel’s decision on whether they are a candidate for euthanasia. Strict tangencies such as the review panel that are in place within Oregon will prevent any change to euthanasia laws. The guidelines are very “black and white” so there are no misinterpretations and the laws are set in stone.

Lehman’s opinions are well thought out and well supported by the research into the process in Oregon, one of the few places on Earth with a legal euthanasia practice. Research into the selection process directly contradicts many popular objection made by critics against legalization of euthanasia. Opinions are very powerful tools that can greatly influence the outcome and views of others in open and controversial topics. Opinions should be based around factual information and solid research, not personal beliefs and motives. This is the clear case between Somerville’s and Lehmann’s articles.

Both being very qualified and knowledgeable in different areas of study, Lehman simply uses her research and time resources fully and reaps the rewards of having a very strong opinion based around factual information based on the foundations of research. Lehman’s opinion will carry much more weight that Somerville’s which is based off unproven claims and research with no citations. When it comes to controversial topics such as euthanasia, it is important to collect as much information as possible before making an informed decision on whether to have it as an option to terminal patients or not.

The decision made will impact people’s lives one way or another. It’s just a matter of which decision will have a greater benefit for the human population. Author. “Title of Article. ” Name of Magazine. Name of Publisher, Day Mon. Year: Pages. Medium. Date you accessed it. Somerville, M. “Legalized Euthanasia Only A Breath Away. ” Globe and Mail, 16 June. 2012. Retrieved October 14, 2012 Lehmann, L. “Redefining Physician’s Role in Assisted Dying. ” New England Journal of Medicine, 12 July. 2012: 97-99. 367. Retrieved October 14, 2012 Word Count: 1195

The mill green goodss machined assemblies furnished to other workss in the UniWare division as constituents of end-items, and besides sold straight as trim parts assemblies to larger end-user clients. The company has a competent and well-trained staff, each of whom is a capable affair expert in their several maps. UniCo is led by extremely experient directors, each of whom has been exposed to progressively broadened duties for different UniCo maps.

UniCo ‘s clients want quality merchandises delivered on-time at a sensible monetary value. In order to command monetary values, UniCo ‘s direction has become progressively efficient at cut downing costs in several operational countries. Fiscal public presentation coverage is provided at every degree of production in keen item so that functional cost budgets can be produced and managed with great preciseness. Automation has been introduced at several degrees to increase production efficiencies and have resulted in unprecedented nest eggs in production clip and station production rate. Even with the debut of the robotics, somehow direction has been able to fulfill the rigorous demands of its nonionized work force to accomplish para in its labour dealingss.

Problem faced by Alex ‘s division

Alex ‘s works portions some not-so-complimentary common traits with real-world organisations. He has orders surrounding on two-months behind scheduled bringing day of the month. He has over $ 20 million in unsold finished goods stock list sitting in a local warehouse. The points that can be delivered are being hurried up through the mill with overtime and particular handling involved at every measure. As a consequence of the bringing slippage, gross revenues are decelerating down, stuff costs are skyrocketing, and every efficiency metric is heading downward at an dismaying rate. Furthermore, the division is confronting an increasing hard currency deficit which in bend might take to its inability to pay rewards.

The company informs Alex that he has 3 months to turn around the state of affairs else by the terminal of the financial twelvemonth, UniCo would close down this unprofitable operation and sell them off to a highest bidder. Alex ‘s occupation and calling are now on the line as a new proprietor would non desire to maintain an unprofitable or uneffective director around to run the same organisation.

Meeting Jonah

Alex by pure opportunity ran into person who introduces him to another manner of believing about his state of affairs, his old natural philosophy professor Jonah. Alex, describes his house ‘s investing in mechanization and how it has led to increased productiveness. Jonah, in bend, questions Alex about some cardinal identifiers of productiveness such as diminishing stock list, cut downing disbursals, and selling more merchandises. Although Alex could n’t affirmatively react to any of them, at that point, he was confident that the issues faced in his works were merely some annoyance jobs, non the death of his full organisation. Jonah takes a minute to uncover the false belief of logic in Alex ‘s concluding – holding accepted many things without oppugning the common sense in their intent and application. Jonah leaves Alex to chew over the construct of productiveness and what it means to a concern.

Identifying the Goal

Productivity is defined as carry throughing something in footings of ends. In order to place the end, Alex has a thought session with his works accountant Lou, and they both agree that “ The end of any concern is to increase net net income while at the same time increasing return on investing and hard currency flow, or fundamentally to do money ” . Though they arrived at a end, neither was cognizant of a scheme to accomplish all 3 at the same clip.

Introduction of new constructs

When Alex discusses this with Jonah, he reveals that operationally, a concern must increase throughput, while at the same time cut downing stock list and operational disbursals.

Throughput: Rate at which the system generates money through gross revenues.

Inventory: It is the money invested in things intended to be sold.

Operational disbursals: All the money spent to change over stock list into throughput.

When Alex asks how he ‘s supposed to mensurate these elements, he is reminded by Jonah that, “ We are non concerned with local optimums, ” mentioning to conventional cost accounting studies. Jonah is a busy single and Alex realizes that Jonah will supply Alex with the concepts for him to divine the replies to the implicit in constructs. Alex must believe through the replies on his ain.

Identifying the Core Problem

Alex takes clip to believe about how the three measurings would use to his peculiar state of affairs. He gathers together his focal point group which consists of Lou, the accountant, Bob, the production director, and Stacey, the stock list control director to bind operational solutions together for the full works. Together they reveal that the beginning of the monolithic stock list is the consequence of overrun of unneeded parts being made to unnaturally maintain the efficiency metrics up. Alternatively of bring forthing what is needed for gross revenues, the works is bring forthing every individual portion every phase can manage. Capacity for bring forthing needed parts is unavailable because it is being tied up bring forthing the extra parts.

Jonah reveals that:

Money is most of import to direction over efficiency.

Cost accounting is the figure one enemy of productiveness.

A works in which everyone is working all the clip is inefficient.

Jonah points out that the lone manner to make extra stock list is by holding extra work force. By paring extra capacity to cut disbursals, without cut downing stock list and increasing gross revenues you trigger downward throughput and increased stock list. If you attain merely one or two of the three elements of productiveness measuring, you are non working towards your end – to cut down operational disbursal and cut down stock list while at the same time increasing throughput.

Dependent events and statistical fluctuations

Jonah reveals that when capacity is trimmed to marketing demands, throughput goes down and inventory skyrockets. The transporting costs of stock list, an operational disbursal, besides go up. This addition tends to countervail the nest eggs presented by the original effort to lower operational costs through labour decreases. If capacity is trimmed to run into demand, demand continues to drop, transporting costs go up, and finally you have no more market left for a mountain of stock list.

Two specific phenomena are identified which cause this consequence – dependent events and statistical fluctuations. Dependent events are a series of events that must take topographic point prior to another one beginning, or in other words, the subsequent event depends on the 1s prior to it. Statistical fluctuations are the consequence of certain types of prognostic information that can non be determined exactly. These fluctuations influence anticipation of mistake per centums, market demand estimations, and efforts to mensurate productiveness.

Alex understands these 2 phenomena when he goes on a hike trip. During the hiking, he notices that the line of tramps exhibits an uneven form of stretching farther and farther apart the longer they hike. He notices that one tramp Herbie appears to be keeping up the staying behind him. Harmonizing to direction scientific discipline, even though these tramps are all at different rates, their mean rate of advancement should be estimable. This mean rate should go the nominal rate of advancement for the full troop. Alternatively the troop is doing concluding advancement, or finishing the hiking, at the rate of its slowest member, Herbie.

The hiking is similar to a set of dependent events capable to statistical fluctuations. Over clip, the fluctuations do non average out, but instead accumulate because the influence of dependent events limits the chances for addition fluctuations. The length of the line of tramps becomes comparable to the entire production clip of a procedure.

Alex tries an effort at re-balancing the capacity by puting Herbie at the forepart of the line, that manner the production length wo n’t be given to stretch out as earlier. It does n’t stretch, but it ‘s still traveling every bit slow as Herbie. Herbie must be made faster, or addition throughput capacity, in order for the whole line to derive throughput. Herbie ‘s back pack burden is lightened and distributed among the troop and the full troop doubles its gait as a consequence of the alteration.

Identifying Constrictions

Alex returns to the works merely to hold his observations in the hike trip confirmed by a production capacity trial. Jonah now introduces the concepts of constrictions and non-bottlenecks. A constriction is any resource whose capacity is equal to or less than the demand placed upon it. A non-bottleneck is any resource whose capacity is greater than the demand placed upon it. If bottleneck capacity is kept equal to demand, and demand beads, costs will travel up ensuing in a loss of money. The aim is to keep capacity at somewhat less than demand.

Alex now starts to place the works ‘s constrictions. The two obvious constrictions turn out to be the multi-process mechanization machine and a heat-treating furnace.

The multi-process mechanization machine NCX-10 can treat an point taking 16 proceedingss and 10 operators in 10 proceedingss and utilizing merely 2. But there is a six month lead clip to develop a NCX-10 operator because of the forte place demands. And trained operators are go forthing the company faster than it can re-train replacings, so the machine is n’t running at full capacity which makes it a non fully-utilized constriction.

The furnace is being run at partial tonss because of expediting, another non-fully utilised constriction.

Optimizing Constrictions

In order to extinguish constrictions, Alex invites Jonah for a works circuit during which he notes that the composing of much of the work-in-process waiting at each of the constrictions is really non-saleable parts destined for warehouse storage. This is concealed extra capacity. He asks about alternate methods which could be used in add-on to the present procedures, turn toing the old retired machines as a possible capacity beginning. He asks if every portion really needs to be processed by the constriction and identifies extra concealed capacity.

Alex learns to see utilizing alternate procedures or off-load to increase capacity. Quality controls should be placed prior to a constriction to guarantee the constriction will non be treating faulty parts and blowing valuable constriction procedure clip. Rejecting stuffs prior to the constriction so becomes simple bit instead than devouring extra capacity. Procedure controls at a constriction should be designed to guarantee zero defects based processing to minimise re-work and system impact costs.

The squad determines that one of the implicit in causes of their present parts pile-up at the constrictions is because the operator can non state the difference between a bottleneck-destined portion and an ordinary 1. The operator, in an effort to maintain busy, processes batch after batch of non-bottleneck parts when what they truly need to make is work on constriction parts. They attempt a solution for this by puting placing tickets on the parts which are destined for a constriction procedure.

The bottle cervix capacity is increased by remembering old machines which ensuing in an addition in constriction capacity. The furnaces are non being manned by dedicated forces to maintain them runing and reloaded during the idle times, so extra forces are assigned to them on a full-time footing.

Additionally, some of the constriction chiefs come up with methods of streamlining their procedures to increase throughput at their Stationss. And for a clip, things seem to be bettering – stock lists are easy shriveling and more backlog orders are being filled.

New jobs come up

A new job is revealed with deficits of non-bottleneck parts now happening in add-on to the constriction parts. This could be potentially a new constriction as a consequence of overtaxing the remainder of the system.

Triping a resource and using a resource are non-synonymous because non-bottleneck stuff continued to be fed into the system in order to keep the production efficiency quotas, non-bottlenecks began turning out maximal units of non-bottleneck parts choke offing the work-in-process stock lists at constrictions and at non-bottleneck Stationss. Triping a resource is merely turning it on. Using it means doing usage of the resource in a manner that moves the system towards the end.

A new stuff release system was developed which triggers release of constriction stuff merely at the rate at which the constrictions need it, instead than being triggered by non-bottleneck idle clip. Jonah shows that they can utilize the same methodological analysis to develop a release system for stuffs throughout the system. By cognizing when the constriction parts will make concluding assembly, the release of the non-bottleneck stuffs can be timed to co-occur along the other paths.

Improvement in consequences

All the stairss to place and extinguish constrictions resulted in better consequences. Peach was impressed, but non sufficiently to name off the division sale. Alex agrees to another 15 per centum betterment in the net net income in order to turn out that the alterations are non fleeting or alone.

As it turns out, Jonah indicates that after burden reconciliation is performed to run into market demand without extra production, the following logical measure is to cut down the batch sizes to cut down the entire capital committedness used during production. Decrease in batch sizes besides reduces the entire clip spent in work-in-process. Less clip spent in production increases the velocity of throughput every bit good as a faster turn-around on client orders. Shorter lead times result in better response to the market demands.

The four primary clip constituents include: setup clip, procedure clip, queue clip ( associated with constrictions where parts wait for a machine to go free ) , and wait clip ( associated with non-bottlenecks when a portion waits for another portion to go on treating ) . Time saved at a non-bottleneck is fanciful because when non-bottlenecks are being set up, the clip spent is taken off from idle clip, non production clip. Economic batch measures are calculated based upon the whole system and non the constrictions themselves. As a consequence, most batch sizes are non optimized to the Stationss most affected by them — the constrictions.

Now that the works has the potency of reacting better to market demands, Alex focuses on the 3rd constituent of productiveness measuring, that of gross revenues throughput, and gets the division gross revenues director, Johnny Jons, to market his works ‘s improved capacity. Together they manage to bind down a major contract utilizing a combination of incremental bringings and low measure pricing. This sets the phase for carry throughing the 15 per centum betterment Alex promised to Peach.

Accounting Impact

Smyth, the division productiveness director and viing works director, sets out to place what Alex is making to his works by originating an internal audit. As a consequence of the labour alterations and the non-bottleneck idle times the cost studies show an addition in per unit costs. Smyth calls Alex in to explicate himself in visible radiation of the audit findings.

Alex illustrates specific points that are in direct contradiction with conventional fabrication premises:

We should equilibrate the flow with demand, non capacity.

The degree of activity from which the system is able to gain is non determined by single potency but by some other restraint in the system.

Triping a resource and using it are non the same.

An hr lost at a constriction is an hr lost by the full system.

An hr saved at a non-bottleneck is worthless.

Performance of an operation should be evaluated by its bottom line.

Smyth presents his findings – that Alex ‘s works has decreased productiveness, increased merchandise cost, and improper attachment to processs throughout the organisation. This was beliing grounds that the works has turned solid net incomes and lowered operating disbursals, increasing hard currency flow. The division accountant pointed out that Alex ‘s works represents the ideal combination of bringing velocity, low cost, and flexibleness that the market truly needs. With this Alex was appointed as the division director.

The ground Alex received support of the division accountant was because Lou, the program accountant had been working hard behind the scenes re-crunching the Numberss and placing an extra defect in the conventional cost accounting procedure – rating of stock list costs. Even though utilizing the hard currency method would clearly show the lessening in work in procedure and finished goods stock list, and decreases in purchased stuff costs, the traditional accrual method shows these actions as period losingss since hard currency payment turning away is non recorded until the following accounting period. In re-calculating the fiscal statements, Lou found a jutting 20 per centum bottom line betterment alternatively of the promised 15. But alternatively of giving these cumbrous accounting accounts to Alex to utilize in his defence, Lou took the consequences straight to Frost, the division accountant who understood the branchings of the Numberss

Decision

5 primary stairss identified to better procedures are:

Identify the system restraints

Decide how to work the system ‘s restraints

Subordinate everything else to the above determination

Promote the system ‘s restraints

If in the old stairss, a restraint has been broken, return to Step 1, but do non let inactiveness to do a system ‘s restraint

Due to the betterments, the works now has twenty percent extra capacity available to carry through demand. It turned out that Europe has many possible clients, but the monetary values they demand are so low below the domestic market, UniCo could n’t perchance take them without losing money. Alex pointed out that when production is used from trim capacity, the lone costs are the cost of the stuffs and as such, any monetary value above stuff cost represents net income. Combined with an unbelievably short bringing clip to close out unimproved rivals, the company has pocketed many trades guarantee the future gross revenues of the works.

Bioethics is a recently coined word. It comes from “bio” which means life and from “ethics” which is morality. Bioethics is that branch of Ethics which deals directly with the problems of life and dying, of health and of healing. It focuses attention to the need for a healthier world in accordance with the dictates of reason.

As a health care provider, they are face with many ethical issues left and right. These issues sometimes question our integrity as humans with compassion and concern for others. They say that health care providers are sometimes called an accomplice whenever they have done an unlawful thing which is not legal for their chosen profession. Respect for persons, justice, and beneficence, autonomy has been a major workhorse in bioethical analysis over the past several decades.

First, let us discuss the respect for persons, justice, beneficence and autonomy. This entails the dignity that we have as human beings. That as human, we have every right to do things and that we should be respected for it. We should respect individuals as well as their lives. As a health care provider, it is our duty to preserve life and not to destroy it. Health care providers often deal with critical situations where human life us at stake, both in the community and in particular health settings. Thus, it is very important that they understand and respect the sanctity of human life. During such situations they may be forced to decide whether or not to perform clinical procedures to preserve health and save the lives of people in a community.

Abortion, we all know that Life is precious. It is our main concern and duty. Health is our personal responsibility. This requires that we adopt a style of life that fosters health. We owe it to our family and society to be healthy. The cost of health care is becoming expensive everyday. It is a crime of gross injustice when, because of our reckless habits, we force our family to suffer financial losses and indebtedness.

But do we really care about the life which God has bestowed in us? Yes, certainly we do but there are some women choose to abort the life that is in them for some irrefutable reasons. Many agree to abortion depends to the circumstances but how about the women who just do not want to have kids? Is it reasonable that they just abort the “life” because they want to avoid responsibilities? Absolutely, not! Human life is sacred because conception, from the beginning, already involves the creative action of God.

As human beings, we remain forever in a special relationship with the Creator. Human life is endowed with majesty and dignity which call forth for an equally dignified response. We owe human life respect and reverence. Such reverence, respect, and concern for life is a way of saying “yes” to God’s concern for human life in all its forms. In this complex world that we live in today, abortion and contraception are two of the most hotly- debated issues. They pose a serious moral challenge particularly to medical practitioners and health service providers who are supposed to preserve and protect human life.

Thus a thorough understanding of these issues is necessary to arrive at logical and moral solutions. Still the fact remains that neither abortion nor contraception are desirable in human society. Their prevention should be a shared task that rises above the debates on the morality of abortion or contraception. The sanctity of human life demands that it must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of a conception. From the first moment of her existence, a human being already possesses the rights of a person and that as health care providers we should greatly respect, among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being.

This alienable right must be recognized and respected by civil society, political authority and health care professionals. Abortion destroys life and violates the right to life. As such it is morally evil and it should not be in any way legalized and liberally permitted in the laws and constitution of the nation as well as in the ethics of the health care professionals.

Euthanasia is one of the most debatable issues of our society today. Many disagree with this practice but others say that it is the only way of ending the agony of the patient. So if this issue is still argued, in what circumstance it becomes right? Euthanasia is the killing, for reasons of mercy, of a person who is suffering from an incurable illness or hopeless injury. Euthanasia is an ancient concept that has in the past been an acceptable practice in certain societies; for example, in ancient Greece. In modern times, however, euthanasia is generally considered murder by the law and also is most of the world’s organized religions.

Passive, or negative, euthanasia does not involve the act of killing. It consists of the withdrawal of, or the deliberate failure to initiate, life-sustaining treatment in hopeless initiate, life-sustaining treatment in hopeless cases. Instead of being kept alive for days or weeks through various kinds of machines and drugs, the patient is simply allowed to die.

Moreover, “euthanasia” derives from the Greek words Eu which means good and Thanatos which means death. It etymologically signifies “good health,” a pleasant and gentle death without awful suffering. Euthanasia may be defined as an action or omission that by its very nature, or in the intention, causes death, for the purpose of eliminating whatever pain.

Furthermore, the issue of death has become more complicated than it is used to be because of ethical conflict. The moral issue of euthanasia revolves around the preservation of human dignity in death even to the individual’s last breath. This issue has both its positive and negative sides.

The positive argument states that euthanasia aims to preserve human dignity until death. Not only does one have a duty to preserve life but one also has the right to die with dignity. To die with dignity means that one should be better than to go on living with an incurable and distressing sickness.

The negative argument, on the other hand, declares that euthanasia erodes human dignity because it means cowardliness in the face of pain and suffering. People who have faced the realities of life with courage die with dignity.

Whereas the positive side insists that mercy killing preserves human dignity, the negative side claims the opposite since the act hastens the death of an individual. Furthermore, others consider euthanasia to be morally wrong because it is intentional killing which opposes the natural moral law or the natural inclination to preserve life. They even argue that euthanasia may be performed for self-interest or other consequences. Also, doctors and other health care professionals may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient. They may resort not to do their best to save the patient. They may resort to euthanasia as an easy way out and simply disregard any other alternatives.

Physician assisted suicide is the type of suicide assisted by a physician. The physician prescribes or administers a drug that could lead the patient to death. One way to distinguish between euthanasia and assisted suicide is to look at the last act, the act by which death occurred.

Using this distinction, if a third party performed the last act that intentionally caused a patient’s death, euthanasia occurred. For example, giving a patient a lethal injection or pulling a plastic bag over her head to suffocate her would be considered euthanasia.

On the other hand, if the person who died performed the last act, assisted suicide took place. Thus it is assisted suicide if a person swallowed an overdose of drugs provided by a doctor for the purpose of casing death. It is also assisted suicide if a patient pushed a switch to trigger a fatal injection after the doctor inserted an intravenous needle into the patient’s vein. A lot of people think that assisted suicide is needed so patients will not be forced to remain alive by being “hooked up” to machines. There are laws that permit patients or their surrogates to withhold or withdraw unwanted medical treatment even if that increases the likelihood that the patient will die. Thus, no one needs to be hooked up to machines against his or her will.

Neither the law nor the medical ethics requires that “everything be done” to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient’s whishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It is also cruel and inhuman.

There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are no longer compassionate, wise or medically wound. On such situations, hospice, including in- home hospice care, can be of great help. That is the time when all efforts should be directed at making the patient’s remaining time comfortable. Then, all interventions should be directed to the alleviation of pain and other symptoms as well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patient’s loved ones.

Medicine is at the service of life. Since the beginning medical practitioners have struggled to conserve health, alleviate suffering and as much as they can, prolong life. Nobody escapes death, as death as inevitable. It is a fearful reality. However, acceptance of death would “perhaps be easier and more meaningful if one lives life to the fullest and strive to give meaning to his/ her existence.’

Today, the p of human life has considerably lengthened than during the past decades, thanks to significant achievements in the medical field. However, life will remain a journey and man will continue his pilgrimage towards his final destiny. Surely, man will reach a point when neither the physician nor modern medicine can do more for him. As one poet states: “It is sheer madness of a man to cling to his life when God wills that he die.” Nurses play a vital role in a patient’s struggle against illness. Are nurses allowed to cut the thread of life when the weight of pain, suffering and hopelessness has become too heavy for the patient to bear? Can we “plan” for our death, just as we plan for our future?

While health providers strive to render the best care for patients, situations arise when the patients themselves demand for assistance to have their lives ended. During such situations, health care providers and medical practitioners are expected to act morally and justify their stand.

Reference:

Drane, James F. Clinical Bioethics. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1994.
Higgins, Gregory C. Where do you stand? New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1995.
Hughes, Gerald J. Authority in Morals. London: Heythrop Monographs, 1978.
Kippley, John & Sheila Kippley. The Art of Natural Family Planning. Cincinnati: The Couple of Couple League International, Inc. 1975.

.

As biological organisms, humans design patterns of how to live by way of autonomous lifestyle choices, only after being born into a subjective realm of existence with social opportunities and limitations suggested by how one is nurtured and raised. A sense of a connection to objectivity is gained depending on how closely one associates themselves with an organized institution such as religion, or other form of moral code.

The idea that knowledge learned from a moral superior at a young age can suggest, or sometimes in early adulthood, coerce decision-making is indicative of a set of parameters or expectations that one must achieve so to honor the objective family belief. Therefore, the family is also an institution which generates the same attachment to objectivity that encourages a certain set of goals. Ultimately though, it is one’s subjective experience that has it’s own social, physical, mental, and spiritual habits and attachments that cause the mind and body to perform and exist in a particular way.

The overarching illegality of euthanasia across North America is supported by religious institutions which act as the sole moral platform for questioning the professional conduct of medical practitioners. The hegemonic belief that is fostered views euthanasia as a breach of non-maleficence, though doctors have and will likely continue to comply with life-ending aid in North America, regardless of recent deliberation regarding legislation. A legalization of euthanasia could ease tensions for physicians and patients dealing with chronic fatal health conditions, but would require specific criteria for legality.

The debilitating suffering from a terminal illness should be the first criteria, as well as an autonomous request made by the sufficiently competent patient. Those who advocate for the legalization of euthanasia are part of a particular morality that sees beyond the mystical value of medical non-maleficence and opposes overarching institutional moralities that forbid life-ending decisions. Also of concern is the slippery slope argument, whereby any level of legal euthanasia would likely incite requests for more flexible criteria, publicly bringing into question the intangible value of human life.

A central notion of biomedical ethics that stands as a major contender against the legalization of euthanasia is non-maleficence. To generally adhere to the principles of non-maleficence, physicians should not provide ineffective treatments to patients as these offer risk with no possibility of benefit and thus have a chance of harming patients. In addition, physicians must not do anything that would purposely harm patients without the action being balanced by proportional benefit (Beauchamp, 155).

This benefit is not necessarily beneficial to the terminally ill individual who has requested euthanasia. The benefit referred to in the medical field is generally an extension of life and a restoration of health, which is not a reality for the terminally ill, rather a benefit might be an end to incurable suffering. Because many medications, procedures, and interventions cause harm in addition to benefit, the principle of non-maleficence provides little concrete guidance in the care of patients, and acts as a fairly weak argument against euthanasia.

A helpful distinction when debating the validity of physician assisted suicide is that of ‘killing’ and ‘allowing to die’. If a patient is too frail to undergo restorative treatment, it can be said that the withholding of that treatment is allowing the patient to die. On the other hand, ‘killing’ entails taking action that would hasten the onset of death. There is considerable overlap between these two concepts, to the point that a clear distinction is not readily discernible (Beauchamp, 172).

The prima facie nature of allowing a patient to die, as expressed by Beauchamp is acceptable under certain conditions whereby a medical technology is considered futile, or ineffectual, or a patient and/or surrogate decision maker has validly denied a medical technology (173). In the case that a patient is suffering unnecessarily, and has denied or been denied the opportunity for treatment due to severity of illness, should euthanasia not be an acceptable option?

This action would undoubtedly fall under the category of ‘killing’, but if the nearest solution is the imminent death of a terminally ill patient, the concept of non-maleficence should not apply to a deliberate hastening of the patients’ biological shutdown. It can also be argued that fading to death in palliative care with little to no cognition is of little value, and coming from a strictly utilitarian perspective, in some cases, may be unnecessary. If an elderly patient has no immediate family, and is in the final stages of a degenerative disease, the option of the patient to deny extended care and hasten the imminence of death should ot be considered immoral.

The approval of certain cases such as the example above would definitely introduce a ‘slippery slope’ argument whereby the notions and parameters of conducting euthanasia would be challenged, inflated, and publicly scorned. The infamous example of Dr. Kevorkian is indicative of the demand for physican-assisted suicide, and the flexible moralities of perhaps many physicians who are faced with the challenge of allowing a patient to pursue a hastened death.

Michigan doctor Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for delivering a lethal injection to a 52-year-old man suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. It was the first time in five trials that Kevorkian was found guilty of a crime after participating in, by his count, at least 130 assisted suicides. Likened to “a medical hit man” by the prosecution, Kevorkian compared himself to Martin Luther King and told the court he was no more culpable than an executioner.

The 70-year-old doctor had dared prosecutors to charge him and threatened a hunger strike if convicted. “Suicide”). The case of Kevorkian’s assisted suicides shows that public hegemonic belief places all burden on the physician involved, for it is technically legal to carry out or attempt suicide, but not with the aid of any other person, especially a clinician. These laws tend to make sense in every realm except the medical world, where euthanasia is an issue that arises with the terminally ill, and particular moralities strongly advocate for the right to die under certain circumstances, as illustrated by Kevorkian’s rash threats of a hunger strike if convicted.

Obviously viewing himself as a liberator, Kevorkian’s particular morality quickly earned him a reputation, and having participated in over one hundred assisted suicides, he stands not as a reputable opposition to hegemony, but rather a moral pariah. Kevorkian’s comparison of his ‘moral fallacy’ with the conduct of an executioner is an interesting philosophical idea, and also illustrates the exclusivity of moral professionalism within the medical world. This is mostly apparent in the United States where there is a domination of privatized health care, and plenty of capital punishment.

The application of morality is varied when it comes to , in a society where a 20 year old can be put to death for committing murder, and in the same society, a terminally ill, suffering patient cannot decidedly seek a peaceful death without moral intervention. In both cases, strong moral impositions are made, and guide the fate of both individuals. The convict has a chance at rehabilitation, and renewing his moral adherence and contribution to society, but is not rewarded the chance because his actions stripped him of his dignity.

On the other hand, the dying patient is not permitted to seek assistance in death because common morality forbids it, much like the same common morality denies the convict . The patient is denied euthanasia because the hegemonic function of the medical field is to avoid non-maleficence, so according to the same morality, the criminal is denied rehabilitation and put to death because the function of the law is to appropriately punish offenders.

This paradox shows how two distinct versions of the same common morality are stamped like a ‘cookie cutter’, yielding the anticipated results of the societal function: the patient can’t die because medicine is designed to keep him alive, and the criminal can’t live because capital punishment is designed to eliminate him. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the application of euthanasia in the medical field should be acceptable in certain circumstances, and that exclusive clinical moralities should allow deliberation on the subject, and not continue to function in a ‘cookie cutter’ fashion.

In Canada and the United States, laws distinguishing ‘active’ and ‘passive’ categories of euthanasia are divided into four sections: “deliberately killing persons who wish to die or assisting them in suicide (active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide), deliberately killing persons whose wishes are unknown or opposed to such treatment (active involuntary euthanasia), withholding or withdrawing life-preserving means from those who do not want them used (forgoing treatment of competent individuals), and letting persons die by withholding or withdrawing life-preserving means when their wishes are unknown or when they want, or would tolerate, such means to be applied or maintained (forgoing treatment of incompetent individuals)” (Dickens, 136). According to these legal parameters, it would seem that active and passive euthanasia should only occur when indicated by the patient, living will, or a surrogate, such as active voluntary euthanasia, and the forgoing of treatment to competent individuals. These two forms provide the patient with the moral decision to adopt the institutional values of their choice and affect their course of longevity and suffering.

In the cases of active involuntary euthanasia, and the withholding of treatment from incompetent patients it can be said that, morally, the physician has no right to change the course of the patient’s treatment without clearance from a living will or surrogate. To conduct active involuntary euthanasia, or withhold treatment for no apparent reason indicated by the patient or surrogate, negligence would necessarily apply and represent the justified fault of the attending physician. Dealing with death is a subjective experience that generates fear, and causes humans to seek comfort in institutional beliefs, whether that be family, religion, other forms of spirituality, or modern medicine itself.

Death reminds humans of their biological capacities and fleeting opportunities for , and generates a desire to medicalize suicide. “We want physicians to provide the means to end life in an antiseptically acceptable fashion. Knives, guns, ropes, and bridges tend to be messy. We seek a more aesthetically pleasing way of terminating life, one that leaves the patient looking dead, but not disgusting. For this, as in so much else in the 20th-century quest for happiness, we turn to the physician” (Paris, 33). Much like we seek aesthetic modifications from plastic surgeons, and mental stability from psychologists, we turn again to professional doctors for a method of dealing with the harsh reality of death.

Though euthanasia may be an acceptable option for some people in certain sets of dire circumstances, it is the fear of death generated by the triumphs of medicine that provide the illusion that death and suffering are something a physician can cure. Medicinal miracles and the rise of technological medicine give people the impression that old losses are new triumphs, at least insofar as one can be kept alive for longer with chronic diseases. This notion sparks the fear of suffering before death, and that morbidity will be extended instead of compressed. Essentially then, it is the physician who bears all weight of the laws pertaining to euthanasia, which seems unjust when there is little more that medicine can do for a terminally ill patient than aid in their peaceful departure from life.

The argument that legalized euthanasia would initiate the slippery slope, and “hospitals would become cruel and dehumanized places” are refuted by the suggestion and observation of the exact opposite (Schafer). As Schafer suggests, “experience has shown that what happened was exactly the opposite of what was predicted by the naysayers: Doctors and hospitals have become kinder and gentler, patients’ wishes are better respected than previously and society has come to accept the importance of individual autonomy at the end of life” (3). Clearly, the legalization of euthanasia would not entirely disrupt the nature of medical care in Canada, and with current debates indicating the possibility of change, society may undergo a change of ideas in the near future.

The idea that euthanasia may provide a patient with more dignity at death than what is often referred to as ‘sedation to unconsciousness’ is becoming more common, and should not be deemed unacceptable next to palliative care. With the right safeguards in place, euthanasia should be one of many life-ending options available to Canadians near the end of their life, with palliative care being a morally adjacent decision. The subjective experience of death is one’s own, and even familial institution can only do so much to comfort the process of being terminally ill. Therefore it should be a decision of the patient to seek medical help, either in the form of sedation and longevity, or immediate peace.

English 20 Soylent Green & Euthanasia Soylent Green was based on the short story by Harry Harrison entitled “Make Room! Make Room! ” It offers solutions to many near future problems. Overpopulation is one. Euthanasia is another. Feeding the masses is yet another. In fact euthanasia is a solution to the problem of overcrowding. What I choose to deal with here is euthanasia. Simonson, a character in the book, helps himself to the latter’s food, liquor, bathroom, and books. Through this he discovers the nefarious deeds of the Soylent Company, The entity that feeds people.

He treats it as a necessary evil. A concept that pulls the hearts strings of all readers. In the story food is provided for the overpopulated world by a lottery where old people are killed in euphoric ways to provide food. The meals are called Soylent green. Some people are aware of what the lottery is for, some are not. These are important for the fact that overpopulation in today’s society is already a problem. I will address that later. The movie is very disturbing. The idea that humans are food for other humans strikes the wrong cord in the reader, as it should.

That is the author’s intention. The movie and the story are made to provoke a viewer to think about different perspectives. The one that stuck with me the most is Euthanasia. I disagree with the author’s inedited meaning. Personally I feel that euthanasia should be allowed. Not out of necessity but because people should not suffer. To address the modern day relevancy it must be mentioned at the time of the book and movie. It was understood mathematically that eventually there would be too many people to feed.

It is the same way today and the number of people that are growing every year is such that it is exponentially. Also euthanasia is constantly debated today. Some people believe that it is an issue reserved for only Gods judgment. I. E. it will never be a human beings decision. The other point of view is that free choice is what is given by god. Again the author is not debating those two issues when it comes to euthanasia. He is debating the first I mentioned. That euthanasia is a moral issue vs. the issue of human survival. Euthanasia is a religious, ethical, and moral issue in this county.

It is one that is shunned by our society in the fact that no one wants to talk about it. The view of many Christians is that when you are called to heaven it is your turn. However, the last six months of your life are usually the most expensive time of life. A person can live a century and in that time, become incapacitated of time and place. In this instance, the physician and government officials have to make the decision to euthanize. Morally, families usually decide and carry out loved one’s last wishes. Funeral’s are arranged, people die, are remembered, and then buried.

It needs to be noted that in many European counties euthanasia is allowed. A kindly death for the elderly is the European sentimentality. Personally I agree with the concept. The movie treats it in a way that is defiantly negative. Again I agree with euthanasia, a safe comfortable death for those at the end of their life. The movie showed the detrimental side of euthanasia. The fact that the people were not aware of being turned into food is humorous. Truly, I find it hilarious. The story is one that shows the dangers of overpopulation and government control.

Forgive me again, for laughing but the irony that is inherent in the movie makes me laugh to no end. Actually what harm is done by people becoming food unwillingly? IT needs to be noted that in the movie Dr. Pianka had mixed feelings about the creation of Soylent green. On one he had was feeding the multitude; on the other hand he was taking lives. How would you feel about such a dichotomy? Personally I feel that the ends justify the means. Truly, debating the intention of the debating author is clear. He hopes that this future is one that WILL not happen! At the same time Harry

Harrison realizes it is a possibility. This is Something that we as humans should be aware of. The possibility that people could be sterilized by the true “progressives” is truly disturbing. In conclusion, Soylent Green is a movie that provokes the mind, spirit, and soul. The truth that the world will soon be overpopulated is so close to coming true! The creators of the movie show that. It wants nothing more for us; as human beings to understand that this is an issue that will have to be dealt with eventually. Also it wants us to understand that not every option is the best option.