Would you support such an initiative? Why or Why not? Does the response add a new insight to ideas already offered? Does it challenge previous ideas and add appropriate counter-thought? Does it give a sense of the “ah-ha” and encourage deeper thought? Does it take enough time to “wallow” in an idea and ask probing questions? Does it demonstrate that you have done appropriate reading and/or research on the topic?
(Need all parts Given at last....attempt if you will provide answers for all .....thanks)
Medical aid in dying is authorized in the states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington D.C., Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine and New Mexico.
Oregon was the first state to legally allow terminally ill people to obtain lethal amounts of prescription drugs for the purpose of suicide. Proponents say the measure would reduce the often ruinous cost of keeping terminally ill patients alive. But opponents say the wish to save money could induce the elderly and the poor to kill themselves. Polls indicate strong support for the measure. Sixty percent say they favor the measure, with 37% opposed and 3% unsure. A patient could obtain a prescription for lethal medicine if a doctor found the person had less than 6 months to live and a second doctor agreed. The patient would have to make three requests, with the third in writing. A Catholic Archbishop called the proposal "murder in the name of mercy." Catholic churches raised over $1 million to defeat the measure. The Hemlock Society of the USA, which champions the right of the advanced terminally ill to end their lives, endorsed the proposal, as did the State Democratic Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Organization for Women. Another backer was a man whose wife had Alzheimer's disease and committed suicide with the aid of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. "The medical profession and hospitals have found a very positive correlation between cash flow and blood flow," he said. The Oregon Medical Association has not taken a position on the issue, but some doctors have. "We're asked to be judge and jury but I don't think doctors are wise enough to be both," an opponent said. Another warned that allowing suicide might encourage the ill to choose death. "Those people, in order to be heroic and save their family from a financial burden, will seek the suicide option."
Would you support such an initiative? Why or Why not?
Does the response add a new insight to ideas already offered?
Does it challenge previous ideas and add appropriate counter-thought?
Does it give a sense of the “ah-ha” and encourage deeper thought?
Does it take enough time to “wallow” in an idea and ask probing questions?
Does it demonstrate that you have done appropriate reading and/or research on the topic?
Step by step
Solved in 8 steps
