Voluntary Euthanasia

When we talk about the term euthanasia we refer to the act of euthanasia which is defined as bringing about the death of another life because their existence is so bad that he or she would be better off dead. There are three types of euthanasia with the first being voluntary euthanasia where a competent person makes a voluntary request to be assisted in ending their life. The next is non-voluntary euthanasia in which a person is either not competent or unable to make the decision and request assistance in their death yet family members or a proxy make the decision on behalf of the person. This is a less common situation but there are issues when we think of the legality of voluntary euthanasia and the possibility of legalization of voluntary euthanasia could lead to improper non-voluntary euthanasia. The last is involuntary euthanasia in which a competent person expresses wishes against euthanasia yet is put to death against their wishes. This in effect is murder so there will not be any discussion on involuntary euthanasia because, as we all can agree, this is inherently wrong. The controversy of assisted suicide has been prevalent in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. However in the past 100 years or so there have been efforts to make legal provisions for voluntary euthanasia without much avail. In the 1970’s and 1980’s a series of court cases in The Netherlands led to the success in getting legislation enacted in 2000 that in essence allowed physicians to provide assisted voluntary euthanasia to people with an unbearable existence due to illness. Belgium also passed similar laws in 2001. In the US, Oregon has legislation that allows for some voluntary euthanasia. However, in 1997 the USSC held that there is no constitutional right to voluntary euthanasia but this has not stopped the practice in Oregon nor repealed the legislation. In my opinion I do not condone the idea of taking the life of someone else or taking one’s own life. These ideas represent giving up hope to me and I try to be as optimistic in my thinking as much as I can. Now I must say that this is a difficult point to argue because I have been fortunate in my life thus far that I haven’t even had to contemplate the idea. I have not been to anyone’s bedside when they were suffering from some debilitating disease and I certainly have never been in that position myself. So it is impossible for me to argue that there is not a particular need in certain circumstances for this practice. Furthermore I cannot argue that there is a need for this practice. All of this would be mere speculation at this point. What I can argue is that this type of legislation seems to have a lot of loop holes that can turn into a rather slippery slope legally. The difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia could certainly turn into a rather ambiguous one when given the mental and physical state of the person who is suffering. I at one time or another we all have felt so bad with whatever it be, a sickness, a relationship problem, finances, ect that we felt like we could not go on. However these all are temporary problems and I realize that a relationship issue is different than a terminal illness but they all represent the same thing to me… giving up hope. I cannot and will not justify giving up hope.

The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer

In the reading from Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford’s “The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer,” we are exploring the ethical issues involved in the courtroom during trials. Specifically, in what ways attorneys influence the jury both directly and indirectly. In chapter seven of the book they tell of Abe Dennison who is a trial attorney that changes his persona for the trial. He is described as a “smoother the silk” man outside the courtroom but that all changes when he is on stage. He is indeed on stage and the jury is his audience and his job is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and make sure and portray his client in the best possible light. One of the most important aspects of his role is to create a rapport with jury; to make them like him. After all, we are most easily persuaded by those who we like and by whom we are alike. So when Dennison goes on trial he leaves his smooth talking nature outside the courtroom and adopts a down home good ole boy attitude so the jury can relate to him better. He also talks in layman terms in an attempt to exemplify his persuasive appeal. He is not alone with his tricks that he uses to influence the jury; many attorneys apply different techniques to lead the jury in the path that is most advantageous to their clients’ particular situation. This only seems to make sense because when I think of a trial I think of competition. When I think of competition I think of winning. However, there is a significant moral issue involved here: Where do you draw the line between persuading the jury by the evidence and persuading them using psychological techniques? It is hard to draw a line because the psychological techniques can be so indirect that they are difficult to prove. When we think of trial situations we can effectively compare it to the American attorney’s time to shine reminiscent of a movie scene. Since such a small percentage of cases actually end up at trial the attorney wants to obviously win his or her case but they also want to impress their colleagues. At trial is when the American attorney is closely criticized and recognized for their techniques. So let’s let at these different persuasion techniques and see if they can be justified from a moral and ethical standpoint. When we dress differently so as to influence the jury to relate to us and to like us, is that unethical? I don’t think that there is even an unethical argument that anyone could make about this particular point. Let’s think about today when we chose what our outfit for a day would include; most of us thought about the social norms in the role we played that day. We choose to dress in a way that is socially acceptable. You would not wear a suit to do construction when your co-workers are wearing coveralls because that is not the social norm. You would not fit in within your group therefore you would not be accepted by your group. Humans are all social beings and therefore we all want to fit in and be accepted by the groups in which we belong. There is no difference between choosing your behavior or attire for the courtroom and changing your behaviors or attire based on what type of work you are doing on a given day. This is a social psychological principal that we want to be accepted in the roles that we play. Therefore it is only natural to want to appeal to those around and there is no difference just because your social reality is in the courtroom. Let’s next look at race which tends unfortunately to be a predominate theme in a lot of high profile trials. There is obliviously still racism in this county today and the courtroom and juries are no exception. The attorney’s always want to work in the best interest of their client therefore when race is an issue within the context of the trial the attorney will want to attempt to pick a jury that will be partial to their client. This is only inappropriate, according to the United States Supreme Court, if race is the sole basis of challenge. However if the lawyer can muster up some explanation in addition to race then it is acceptable and this is easily done. Therefore you can see the issue with actually proving jury selection was based on race solely. All in all it is suggested that jury’s are smarter than attorney’s give them credit for and that they are not easily swayed by the “trial tricks.” This is the opinion that I am adopting so regardless how great we feel our techniques are; in the eyes of the jury it the evidence that persuades not the courtroom actor.

Surrogacy in America

The ideas and practices of surrogacy have been around for centuries and have reached a controversial place in our American society today. Surrogacy refers to the term “contract pregnancy” in which a woman is paid to give birth to a baby for a couple that is unable to bear children. Typically the process is done in a fertility clinic through in vitro fertilization in which an egg is fertilized in a lab and then the embryo is implanted into the surrogate mother. The egg in most cases is not from the surrogate mother so she has no genetic links to the child. Generally in heterosexual surrogacy cases the egg comes from the female in the couple and is fertilized with the male’s sperm. This process enables the child to have genetic links to both the male and female of the contracting couple. The practice of surrogacy however is not limited to heterosexual couples. Gay couples are using surrogacy as a way to bear children as well. The whole process of surrogacy can turn into a legal challenge at times, as you can imagine, there are many stipulations and demands the contracting couple may provide on the female providing the services. The contracting couple wants to make sure the mother is taking care of herself and the fetus properly to try to ensure a healthy baby. Then you have custodial issues when the surrogate mother has psychological related issues about giving the child she was pregnant with for nine months up after birth. In response to the issues some state governments have been trying to legislate against surrogacy or allow surrogacy and mandate it legally. Six states currently allow families to enter in the surrogacy contracts while eleven states and DC prohibit the practice all together. The remaining states have mixed or unclear laws regarding the matter. Lastly we have the moral issue surrounding surrogacy contracts, is it really just “glorified baby selling”? Some say, yes, you are after all paying someone to have a baby for you. Others say it empowers woman to help give the gift of life to families who are unable to bear children on their own. Still others say it represses women and discriminates against people. Who knows who is right? I have my biases embedded in my own opinions but frankly until I read the readings on the subject this week, I had no idea that it was even a moral issue! I can see in some ways how the legal issues (idea of “baby selling”), psychological issues for the birth mother, and civil issues can represent some major challenges but I do not think this is a morally unacceptable practice. I think it represents a way to create more families who are unable to have children. Furthermore, I would argue that if a couple would be willing to contract out between 20-50 thousand dollars for a child that having a family is pretty important for them. They would obviously be financially stable enough to raise the child and if having a child is that important to them they will most likely make pretty darn good parents. I think that it is important to note that giving the opportunity to raise children to good natured people will add to cohesion in society, a good natured society. I want to add that this industry does need to be regulated; I think it would be beneficial to make sure there is plenty of counseling for those who decide to engage in the practice and for everyone to be aware of the risks involved and the frequent occurrence of these side effects.

The First Amendment: Tragedy at Kent State

In today’s readings I examined the issue of free speech in political protests. I am specifically looking at the tragic events at Kent State University in Ohio that occurred on May 4th, 1970. The United States was in the midst of the widely opposed Vietnam War and the students were protesting the recent invasion of Cambodia that furthered the war. President Nixon had been in office for about two years and one of his political promises in the previous election was to end the Vietnam War. During his first year as president the war seemed to be dwindling down, however this attack on the Viet Kong Headquarters in Cambodia was a far cry from his campaign promises. This, not surprisingly, outraged students at the University who opposed the war and therefore students began to exercise their First Amendment Right to free speech. The events that led up to the tragic day started with Nixon’s radio address to the nation on April 30th, 1970 making the announcement that the US was indeed invading Cambodia. The Friday evening following the announcement began with students protesting in the streets out downtown Kent and was compound when the mayor announced they would close the bars early due to the protests. This only perpetuated matters sending even more students that had previously been drinking in the bars into the streets causing fires, broken store windows, and violence against police. Decisions were made to bring in the Ohio National Guard to help with the protesters and preserve the peace. The Students organized an anti-war rally to be held on May 4th in the University commons area at 12 noon. The University had made the decision to ban the rally from taking place. Protesters ignored the demands of the University officials and the protesters began to rally in the common area. Ohio National Guard troops were order to break-up the mob and were met with rocks, bags of feces, and bottles thrown at them. The troop’s initial attempt to break up the group was unsuccessful so the general ordered the troops to load their weapons but instructed not to shoot unless command was given. As the troops where breaking up the mob shots were fired by the troops and 4 died and 9 more were wounded. Interviews with troops afterward indicate that there was no command to fire given yet some troops felt that the command was given by the initial shot fired however unspoken. The gunfire only lasted 13 seconds yet 61-67 shots were fired. Criminal charges against the soldiers were dismissed in court; however civil judgments were awarded to the families of victims paid for by the state. I have many issues with what took place that tragic day. First, I do not agree with the university’s decision to ban the anti-war rally; in my opinion that greatly infringes on ones right to free speech and fundament right in the Bill of Rights. Secondly, I feel that the protesters should have been less destructive and more peaceful in their actions. However, I do not feel that the actions of the troops to use lethal force on the group is justified in any way. Taking a course is social psychology this semester has open my eyes to the influence of groups and the power of situations and I can’t help but wonder if some social psychological factors were at work in this particular situations. I tend to have a positive outlook when I think about the human nature of people and try to assume that most people are good people. So I wonder if a shot could have been fired accidently by someone who causes the troops to react by firing their weapons as well. I think it is important to be sure and observe the rights of people in times of protest and it is the responsibility of the US Army to teach our troops about the power of such influences can have on groups.

Breaking New Ground

This week’s reading reflection is an excerpt from Sidney Poitier’s autobiography “Measure of a Man.” Sidney Poitier was an African American actor in the late 1960’s and in chapter six of his book he describes some cultural injustices he experienced. Poitier talks of issues of being African American in the film industry and the types of discriminations he encountered when dealing with movie production companies and his fellow actors. There was a particular film that was in the process of being approved by Columbia Pictures in which an African American doctor goes to meet the Caucasian family members of a woman he was romantically interested in. Given the times of the culture this was a rather taboo subject, which made it difficult to get approved by the production company. Poitier then goes on the describe meeting the other white actors he would be working with in the film. Mr. Poitier visits actress Katherine Hepburn’s house to meet for her for dinner and to talk about the film. Throughout the course of their meeting Poitier describes to us how he could feel her judging him by every comment he made. Although Hepburn was rather liberal, her experience with African Americans was limited to the maids and service people she had hired to work for her. Poitier then goes on to meet Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn together for dinner, in which Hepburn seemed a lot milder in her demeanor. Throughout the chapter Poitier focuses on the issues and discrimination African American’s still faced as society was changing. He makes a strong argument about the anger and hatred he experienced and the importance of turning these negative energies into positive forces that will ultimately mold society to be a more accepting place. Poitier describes the implications of the negative thoughts and the problems they add to society. Going on, he gives a vivid account of meeting racism though police officers for merely being on the wrong side of town and being threatened with murder if he didn’t walk all the way home without looking back. I definitely have a lot of respect and admiration for Poitier and the injustices he experienced. I am particularly fond of the way he chose to look at situations in which he endured negative situations and discriminations. Looking at situations that, without a doubt, would have caused him anger he explains the importance of changing it into something positive that would benefit society. This is nothing short of amazing to me and he paved the way for society to be more accepting of African Americans in today’s society. Without actors and actress like Poitier it is difficult to gauge what our society would be like today. His perseverance and drive to deal with social issues through the media definitely, in my opinion, has made us more accepting of people in general. If it we didn’t have people like Poitier that pressed the societal boundaries then society would not be as ever changing as it is today.

Gender and Society

When examining the effects on gender and society, it can be a rather ambiguous topic and open to interpretation. This week I looked at some book excerpts dealing with gender, the issues with defining it, gender discrimination, transgender issues, and the overall implications gender has on our society today. The first book I took a look at was Steve Harvey’s “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man,” in which Harvey describes the thinking processes of stereotypically men and women. The chapter 4 excerpt focuses on the communication lapse between men and women, basically giving women the basic knowledge of how men want to fix issue instead of merely “talking” about issues at hand. I went on to read Susan Sontag’s article “A Woman’s Beauty: Put-Down or Power Source?” Sontag describes how the beauty of a woman is more important in today’s society versus the attractiveness of a male. So goes on to explain how in today’s day and age a women’s outward beauty helps her get ahead in society. In Vanessa Baird’s article “Transgender Indentities: Like Stars in the Sky,” she explores issues with transgender people throughout the world and how different societies deal with the issues. She also helps the reader to understand how complex and ambiguous the issue of gender really is. The last piece I looked at was “Suit Over Estate Claims a Widow is Not a Woman” by Jodi Wilgoren. In her article she brought up the issues that a transgendered male-to-female faced when involved in a dispute over her late husband’s estate. These issues with gender and society are ones that I think get “swept under the rug” more often than not and that in my opinion is very problematic. In Harvey’s piece, I thought the reading was humorous and I agreed that there is often a lapse in communication in all relationships. However, I took issue with some of the things he related to as far as differences in the thought processes of men and woman. This seems extremely stereotypical to me. In my opinion I don’t think what specific sex what necessarily defines what “role” we play in a relationship. In romantic relationships I agree that one or the other person involved in the relationship do have there differences in how they look at situations that may arise throughout the course of the relationship, whether one looks at the particular situation more analytically or more emotionally and vice versa. I do not agree that our particular sex defines that but rather that our personalities do. While I was reading Sontag’s article, I agreed with some of the points she was making, but I disagreed with her in part as well. I think that men also have to take care of themselves and their looks or attractiveness are just as important in getting what they want out of society. I realize that not everyone is drop dead gorgeous but either male or female, your level of attractiveness is a power source in today’s society. This is quite controversial and not always necessarily fair or just, but I think it is rooted into us and is biological in nature. Judging a book by it cover, unfortunately is something that we will be dealing with for a long to come. As I took a look at the transgender discrimination issues, I was taken back by the fact that other societies in other countries more readily excepted people with gender identification issues and moreover accepted them as leaders. That is amazing to me that America being the land of the free chastises these individuals while other societies raise these people to the level of spiritual leaders a shamans. Maybe we need to take a look at other societies and how they have dealt with these issues and learn how NOT to discriminate from them. After all, the society of the USA isn't always right. I think looking back at history, we would all agree to that.

War, Genocide, & Punishment

Reading Reflection #3
This week’s blog about war, genocide, and punishment is a tough topic, it is hard for me to fathom the undeniable atrocities committed by individuals in times of war and waging genocide. Looking first at the Nuremberg Trials in which leaders of the Nazi Regime where prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. The prosecution brought forth first documentary evidence in reference to the first of four counts of war crimes. This evidence was used to establish the criminality of the Nazi Regime as a whole. Then the prosecution brought to light the physical evidence exemplifying the horrible terror the Jews must have endured. The physical evidence included sadistic and disgusting atrocities performed on the corpses of Jews, things like a shrunken human head used as a paperweight and human skins tattooed then used as lampshades. This physical evidence was used to establish the criminal acts committed by the individuals. In all, 18 out of the 22 Nazi leaders indicted were convicted on one or more counts of war crimes. Punishments ranged from lengthy prison sentences to death by hanging. In Ismael Beah’s narrative “A Long Way Gone,” he takes the reader through the horrors of war and the life of being a child soldier. His graphic account of children soldiers in war is eye-opening and very saddening. Remarkably, Beah was able to survive and escape the drugs, death, terrible position he was put in. The last book that I took a look at was “Left to Tell” by Immaculee Ilibagiza. Immaculee tells her account of surviving the Rwandan genocide of 1994. When looking at these topics it is excruciatingly painful to imagine how people can commit these acts. These issues provoke some questions in my mind. Are the people who actually commit these acts truly these sadistic horrible people that the evidence leads us to believe, or do the ideals of one powerful leader influence the group to commit acts they normally wouldn’t? When we look at the issue of the group from a social psychological standpoint, it makes me ponder Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments (1965, 1974). In these controversial experiments Milgram had a “teacher” who was told to administer electrical shocks to the “student” if a question was answered incorrectly. The level of voltage ranged from a minor shock to a lethal range; of course no shocks were actually administered. The study showed that in the presence of authority, seemingly good people will do things out of character for them. I guess it’s hard for me to believe that so many people are so innately evil to commit these viscous acts. I think the power of the group and obedience to authority played a significant role, and still does, in these acts of war. I was shocked to read Beah’s account of being a soldier with a gun, killing people at the tender and innocent age of twelve. It is heartbreaking, to say the least, that children are out fighting wars and being killed in the world we live in today. I can’t even begin to imagine what war, death, and genocide would have on a person’s psyche.