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held that there is no constitutional right to voluntary euthanasia but this has not stopped the practice in Oregon nor repealed the legislation.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.