The case for Euthanasia

Blog Response 6: The case for Euthanasia (or go to the pdf version with a snazzy picture)

(start word count)

Euthanasia. At first glance, it seems like a fairly simple affair. The person wants to kill him/herself to relieve pain and suffering, let him. Throw a few jabs and hooks from "sanctity of human life" and "moral grounds" and we get a highly debatable topic.

VE (voluntary euthanasia) is generally considered suicide. However, I believe there is a vast difference between the two. When a person commits suicide, he is usually under psychological stress, but still has the potential to do something after the stress. It is generally immoral as they do not take into account the hardship others have to go through. However, when a person is suffering and can barely be able to do anything, his (voluntary) death is known to the rest of his family, and lessens their emotional pain. It also ends his suffering and therefore the family will not have to see him/her suffer.

Suicide is universally thought to be a rash decision, made with disregard for others. VE however, will only be conducted after a person has decided that they can do nothing else to increase the value of their life. Does society have a place for these "useless" people? If they themselves think they are suffering for nothing, why leave them in their agony?

Life is presumably "holy" and the loss of life should be decreed by the "supreme creator". People have been fighting for human rights for centuries, many times gaining it. Why not the right to death (to end suffering)? If the views on these issues is truly secular, we should not be using theological views. In the past, it has deterred progress. If we are going to look at such topics statistically and scientifically, why bring religion (where God has not been scientifically proven to exist) into the picture? The Church, for one, has made exceptions to many things. In many cases, they have led to progress and been universally accepted as "good" things. Why not euthanasia? I am not entirely sure about the theological views on euthanasia (being a non-Christian, and not understanding Buddhism's stand), however, is it not also our own right to choose when to end our lives, especially when suffering?

Euthanasia is also, in many cases, moral. Ending one's own life does not (as the article says) affect other people physically. Not to mention, if the person's relatives agree to it, it is all the more moral, since everyone is trying to end their suffering and it leads to happiness, and by Virtue Ethics, is a good thing. (take for example, Ramón Sampedro)

With society becoming more liberal and people gaining more freedom, i do not see why euthanasia should be illegal. Many will argue that there is always a possibility that they can still do something about their lives. But, sometimes there really is no point waiting. If we truly have freedom of choice, let death be one of them. We have been trying to increase the value of life for centuries now, why not the value of death?

(end word count)

504 words.

Ankus 'R us.

Blog Response 5:
Heritage Competition Thing

Elephant goad (ankus) from late 19th - early 20th century

(start word count)

An ankus is a tool (still used today, although less ornate) to train elephants. This one is made of brass and steel and has been expertly crafted with intricate carvings and the sculpting is marvelous.

The metal head has been crafted with magnificent detail. Markings have been carved and woven into every exposed space on the metal. The end of the handle also has a small animal sculpture. This ankus has been made with amazing skill and the time and effort show in this practical ornament.

With such beauty, there is no doubt that it was not owned by just any mahout (elephant trainer). It shows that this was used in royal ceremonies (that involved elephants) and the mahout was definitely under the King (who sat on the elephant).

The exquisiteness of this almost insignificant tool shows the King's need to flaunt his riches. The fact that the king was the only one who was allowed to breed elephants also shows that the elephant was seen as a "royal" animal, one that could portray the majesty of royalty. By making everything he had grander (in this case the ankus), the king also showed his wealth and therefore, power.

(end word count)

(198 words)

external source.