Students were given the first 20 minutes to prepare their presentations to the class. For section 3, Groups discussing parallelism and names will go at the beginning of the hour on Monday.
Students were also to turn in found poems. Most were not completed. Late work will be accepted. Posted below are samples of Found poems:
 |
| http://chippedteacup.hubpages.com/hub/visual-and-found-poetry |
 |
| By Carrie Arizona (www.deviantART.com) |
 |
| http://chippedteacup.hubpages.com/hub/poem-charming-imperfection |
 |
| kirstyes.co.uk |
 |
| kirstyes.co.uk |
 |
| http://piccsy.com/2011/05/night-overtakes/ |
 |
| http://www.gwarlingo.com/2012/the-sunday-poem-mary-ruefle/ |
Homework:
1. Read Chapter 3 to review for a short quiz.
2. Read the following article on Euthanasia. Especially read the pro and anti euthansia arguments. Then comment below. What is your personal response to Euthansia after having read both sides of the argument? Refer back to the article in your response. Do you believe it an act of good will to allow Curly's dog to die as he is suffering a less than dignified existance and is in a great deal of pain? Or do you believe it to diminish the sanctity of life by putting Curly's dog down? Is Carlson wrong to suggest the notion in chapter 2 of OMAM?
3. Read over the Found Poems above for reference in class next week.
4. Section 3: Turn in chart with 5 points that extend both the argument that George is a good or bad friend.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a christian, I tried to be as impartial as I could while reading these articles. My personal response to euthanasia is that it is truly up to the person. If they want it, it should be offered. Despite it being "against the will of God", I still think that it is not up to others to decide when to end another person's life. It is their own decision. If they're in so much pain that they would even consider euthanasia, then an easier discourse should be offered to them. I especially liked the argument "Is Death a bad thing?"
ReplyDeleteNow, about OMAM itself...
I believe it is an act of goodwill to allow Curly's dog to die. He is obviously suffering more than he deserves to. I don't think anyone deserves to live if they are continually suffering pain in an endless cycle, with no one willing to end life because they are afraid it goes against God's will. I don't really think the sanctity of life exists; and if it does, then we need to re-examine what life really is, because life certainly isn't continual pain. Carlson is definitely not wrong to suggest this method of execution.
Albert, I think you contradict yourself. Your belief, as you describe it, asserts that euthanasia is 'against the will of God.' How can you be in support of it if you believe you must give over a certain amount of autonomy when it comes to ending life? Please consider and respond.
DeleteMy personal response to euthanasia is that it should be legal in all circumstances. Whether the "sick" person him or herself would want it or whether the family members would want it, euthanasia should be legal. Religion should not be used as an argument against life and death. If a person is in severe pain and has no real reason to live, his or her pain should be alleviated by giving them euthanasia. My favorite argument has to be, "Is death a bad thing?"
ReplyDeleteIn the text OMAM,
I support Carlson's words on putting the dog down. The readers can obviously tell that the dog is in pain and the fact that Candy still keeps the dog alive is cruel and inhumane. The dog does not deserve to feel pain like this. Even if it does go against God's will, keeping the dog alive goes against its will on feeling pain.
The personal response of euthanasia is that the decision should be entirely up to the person. Although you technically killing a human life, you are also giving him the opportunity to relieve the pain and suffering. At this point, it should be there decision to carry the pain, or use euthanasia. To support my argument, I chose the topic "people have the right to die" because it should be their right to die.
ReplyDeleteIn the OMAM....
Since the dog can't speak for itself, I believe that "taking care" of the dog would be a wise choice. Although the dog is not human, I believe that anyone who lives with pain should have the right to die in peace. Keeping the dog alive would be an act of cruelty and would not be a good choice for the dog, as it consistently suffers from pain.
My personal response to euthanasia is that it only concern the person who is confronted to the demand. There should be no interference of other people, even members of the family. It may be consider as selfish to die and make it's beloved ones cry and sorrowful, but it is a decision that should be chosen only by the one that is suffering. Pain is one of the most horrible thing that one can feel. Euthanasia is a way to put an end to the pain. My favorite argument would be "Death is a private matter".
ReplyDeleteIn OMAM
I am on the side of Carlson's opinion. The author demonstrates a dog who is suffering and in pain. The dog cannot do anything except eating and sleeping. Even though it cannot express it's feelings like a human, we can deduce that the dog is suffering and fed up wit his life. The pain should be put to an end to relieve the dog's soul.
Joachim, you assert the claim that euthanasia is a private matter and that those who are suffering should be offered the ease of dying. Does suicide as an epidemic in the city we live not strike you as a concern in need of of social interest?
DeleteI believe euthanasia should be offered to the suffering person. People are given the right to choose what they want and they should receive what they want. The term "take him out of his misery" is a more casual, less medical way of saying euthanasia and it shows that the purpose of it is to end someone's life when pain is dominating their life at an uncontrollable amount. I believe the argument "Is death a bad thing?" best supports my belief as sometimes death is an easy way out of a living hell.
ReplyDeleteIn OMAM, I support Carlson's will to put down the dog. The dog is clearly suffering and when pain is dominating its life, there is no reason to keep living because he has nothing to live for. The fact that Carlson cares enough to know how the dog feels in order to put him down is enough proof that it is an act of goodwill.
Wonhee, in the case of the dog, who determined the dog was suffering? And in the case of misery, to what degree of pain would you allow death to be an option and death to be off the table, scaled between a paper cut and a cancerous-ridden body?
DeleteI think that euthanasia is a good way to put a person out of their misery in some cases. It is the person's opinion and choice whether they decide to die or not. Some people want to end their lives possibly because their poor physical state, or complete loss of hope in life. I liked the argument, Is death a bad thing."
ReplyDeleteIn OMAM, I agree with Carlson's opinion to kill the dog. Candy obviously likes the dog because of the many good time they had spent together. However, the dog has nothing to look forward in life than more suffering. I believe that a swift, painless death would be the correct course of action in this situation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are exceptions to every subject, where it is morally acceptable for people to do even the most devilish acts. A linear, “yes or no” law does not appeal to me, because every situation of a crime committed is different from each other. Euthanasia is a topic that also falls under this category, because there are exceptions to whether this practice is morally wrong or right. A person helping out a friend peacefully leave this earth, for example, does not deserve a life sentence to jail. A person who kills another in cold murder, however, deserves punishment. Personally, I believe that although I do not favor the practice of Euthanasia, there should not be a legal stance against it, because there are certain times when it is necessary to use. As the article mentions, illegalizing Euthanasia will cause more problems, such as cases where Euthanasia is obtained illegally, or patients turn to other and more dangerous options of suicide. Patients who have no chance of living and are in excruciating pain only bring sadness upon themselves, and the people around them. In this case, with the consent of the patient and the people around him or her, I believe it is a right option to use Euthanasia. I do not see a large difference between a patient who asks for death upon them through Euthanasia, and a patient who gives up their fight against death as they fall into the world beyond earth.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Of Mice and Men, however, Curley’s dog did not have the option to express his feelings about his death. Although I previously mentioned that it was okay for Euthanasia to be practiced, I stand against this situation because the dog did not bring suffering onto others, (other than its smell), and was happy to live the end of his days next to his best friend, Curley. The death of the dog did not bring relief, but brought regret. I believe that when Curley wanted to keep the dog alive, it was not an act of selfishness, but an act of true friendship that can only exist between a dog and his master. I would have rather seen Curley and his dog holding onto each other in glory and warmth for the rest of their days, rather than a dark chill of regret pestering and haunting down Curley’s spine every night.
Your ambilivalence is a testimony to the thorough considerations you've made and how you may have argued both sides of the argument. Wonderful! However, Jeanne, just as any law designed to govern men does not have the ability to bend according to each case, your stance on the topic needs to be declared. There's a special case for every rule. Your response is self-contradictory.
DeleteConsider the following: the dog's death was supposed to end the suffering of the dog, but the dog is the silent participant in it...therefore is it even euthanasia? or murder?
I think that ending a person's life is wrong. Euthanasia should be a choice. Taking this would make a person's life be over but ending a life which is precious would make it really a waste. I come from a point of view as a Christian, and the way I think is that God gave us life in order start a relationship with him. Ending the life that he gave us would be very depressing for him. The person may be want to end their life, but the choice that they make to end their life would be tragic.
ReplyDeleteIn OMAM I agree because the dog is suffering a lot and also it has been hard for the dog. Curly has many memories with the dog and having to end the dogs life without any pain or suffering would make Curly feel a bit better and also better for the dog.
The following two statements are contradictory: I think that ending a person's life is wrong. Euthanasia should be a choice.
DeleteWhat's your take? Choose 1.
I believe that the individual himself/herself has the right to choose whether they would like to undergo euthanasia. Prior to reading the article, I had been neutral on the issue and was not sure whether it was good or not. But after reading through the entire article, I felt more inclined that euthanasia is positive. The argument on the pro side that struck me as most interesting was "Is death a bad thing?" This made me rethink my whole perspective on what death was, and opened my mind to a brand new outlook.
ReplyDeleteI support Carlson's stance on killing the dog. Despite the fact that Candy's dog means a lot to him and Candy adores him, killing the dog is the right thing to do. The dog is so old and therefore so debilitated that even though he continues to live, the only thing in his future days will be more pain and suffering. Carlson seems to know what is best for the dog: a quick death that would leave it in pain no more.
My opinion is that euthanasia is entirely up to the person who is in pain. Although there are exceptions in various aspects, I believe banning euthanasia is an act crueler than euthanasia itself. One should not be forced to put up with pain or suffering if he does not desire, and this method of "easy death" or "mercy killing" should definitely be an option. Of course in the Christian faith, there are strict morals about suicide, but I believe that deciding to end one's own life because of pain is in a different category of death.
ReplyDeleteBecause Curly's dog cannot express his own thoughts, it is hard to decide whether euthanasia is appropriate or not. However, if Carlson wants to put down the dog with only good intentions of ending its pain, then I believe it is not wrong to.
Personally, I believe that a person's death without pain and by the person's request should be at least legal in a civilized society. You would never want to be in so much you want to kill yourself; if that is the case, they should have the choice to end their life although it should not be a hasty choice people should act upon. Even though I believe euthanasia should be allowed, I don't believe it should be used often, but only in extreme cases, and only if the person who is ill says it personally. Wouldn't euthanasia be better than suicide? I believe that other people making such important choices for a person such as death is not moral. However, legalizing euthanasia will also bring several disadvantages, such as loss of family and/or friend and putting a precious life at risk, which would be extremely controversial for religious people.
ReplyDeleteIn Of Mice and Men, I don't think it was right to kill the dog by shooting it. Yes, it is going through so much pain by living, however, it wasn't the dog who made the decision to whether it wants to live or not; who knows what he wanted! Of course, dogs cannot talk, but it wasn't even the owner, Candy, who made the decision to kill his companion. It was his coworkers who pressured him to make such decision. Also, this is not really euthanasia, since shooting isn't a painless way of killing; it really does hurt to be shot, although fortunately, I have never gone through such experience. I believe Carlson's notion to be wrong; one who is not related to the dog has no right to say such things to insist a person to kill a special figure.
Your close reading of the text regarding the dog and the definition of Euthanasia is interesting.
DeleteI think that no matter how pained a person may be, if they have the slightest chance of a miracle, they have no right to end their lives. I am also against euthanasia that is in any way involuntary. However, if the person is in agonizing pain and the doctor deems there is absolutely no chance of survival, then with patient and family consent they may turn to euthanasia to relieve the patient from what they deem is purposeless existence. However the thought still disgusts me because I still have a side that tells me that humans have no right to intervene in something that is supposed to be a gift from God. I agree that euthanasia diminishes the sacredness of life and that if euthanasia is permitted in any way it can lead to other people manipulating this ability. However, I still think that inflicting gradual pain that will inevitably lead to death is inhumane.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Carlson is cruel to have suggested killing the Candy’s dog because the dog did not have the ability to express his opinion on this suggestion. After being loyal to Candy all his life, being assumed that he would gratefully accept death just because of his unproductiveness and handicap, is too much of an extension. I feel that this suggestion is disrespectful to both the dog and Candy (who feels a great attachment to the dog) and to life in general.
The last two sentences of your first paragraph are contradicting. How can you aptly address your ambivalence. As a society we cannot apply a case by case law, right? So what's your take?
DeleteThe next question we must ask, then, is what contributes to the characters diminished sense of sacredness when it comes to life?
I believe that they had the right to choose whether they would experience euthanasia or not. But in my opinion, it all depends on the person who is going through a hard time or is going through pain. After reading the article, it was hard to choose whether euthanasia was good or not. However, I felt that euthanasia was more positive than negative like "is death a bad thing?" I, myself have always asked that question because death does not mean a bad thing, but people are scared of death and might be what all people are scared of the most.
ReplyDeleteIn the story, "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck shows that Carlson is a cruel person who wants to kill Candy's dog. The fact that Candy's dog means a lot of him, killing the dog is the right thing to do because the dog is old. Even though the dog continues to live, the dog is living through pain and unhappiness. Just like old people- most prepare for death because they would rather have a peaceful life than having to suffer from breathing. Therefore, I think Carlson is correct because he probably knows what the dog feels like inside.
In terms of the circumstance of Candy's dog's situation, I feel it was of good will that the dog was put down. According to the BBC article, one pro-euthanasia argument describes its right to be carried out when given the consent by the subject. The dog might not have a say in his death, but his owner, who in some ways owns the dog's life, has given the consent to carry out the deed.The article also emphasises that death happens anyway. Death happens in whatever way possible, may it be a natural death or a planned one.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-euthanasia article argues that it goes against God's will. The idea of death that God has planned has never been restricted to death in a bed. His will could be someone committing the murder, or an accidental fall. The only exception is suicide, which in Candy's dog's case, does not happen.
Also, nothing was wrong with Steinbeck mentioning this notion. The time period of the setting should also be considered. In the time of OMAM, putting down the weak from a new group of newborn animals or the old ones close to death is a normal deal. We can see this when Slim mentions sometime before that he had just drowned some of the weak pups his dog had just given birth to. The time period is strict in the idea of the survival of the fittest. Those who are weak aren't fit to benefit the society and should therefore be done with as to avoid being a burden to those who are fit. The mindset of the time can't call for the saving of the weak since the people are so desperate to find work and survive themselves. Euthanasia in the current time period might be a different story.
An insightful response! Your third point is particularly striking, in that you attribute the quality of life and the choices made to the circumstance as well.
DeleteEuthanasia should only be used in extreme cases, or if the patient gives consent. If the patient is clearly in a large amount of pain, it is best that they should undergo euthanasia; it could save their family money for the medicine to try and sustain his life and it may be the best treatment for their suffering. Although it may be unethical and immoral in some cases, it can be understood that it is best to relieve a person of their pain as long as they accept it.
ReplyDeleteWith the case of animals, it is a bit more variable. In a practical sense, it may be better to apply euthanasia. It would receive the animal in question of pain, and prevent any diseases it has accumulated from spreading. Additionally, the animal cannot assist the owner anymore, so it is a bit unwise to invest in the attempt rescue of the animal.
In OMAM, Candy was wise to go through with euthanasia. It was suffering greatly and it could not help Candy in its state. Although Candy suffered greatly emotionally, had he waited, it would only be worse as he would risk exposing any diseases the dog had acquired or lose more money trying to sustain the dog.
Please identify yourself to receive credit.
DeleteBen, I figured out who you are. =)
DeleteI think your response points out the devaluation of human life that is happening in light of the social and economic context.
I believe that euthanasia should be allowed in only a very specific circumstance: war. Other than that, I think that it shouldn't be allowed. No matter how much someone suffers at one time, there's always a possibility that their situation will get better. It may not seem that way while they suffer, but a turn of events could lead to a better life. If decisions were made while the victim was suffering, the decision could be rash and very instinctual.
ReplyDeleteAs for Curley's dog, killing them wasn't the most pleasant thing to do, but it was necessary. The setting of the book is in 1930. At that time, every mouth you had to feed would bring you down. If a mouth wasn't fed, it would suffer throughout its entire life. The fact that they were dogs, it was easier done. Like we have stated before in class, Carlson wrote in the perspective of a person living in the 1930s. He wasn't making things up to spice up his story, he wrote what really happened a long time ago.
Euthanasia should be banned in todays world. It happened a long time ago and it was no less severe of a problem as it would be today, but as people there will be suffering and experiences that really make you feel like you want to die. There should always be hope for an optimistic result.
Andrew! Finally someone with the courage to have an outright differing opinion! Share these in class. Spark debate. You have worthwhile opinions to share.
DeleteI think your statement, "I think that it shouldn't be allowed. No matter how much someone suffers at one time, there's always a possibility that their situation will get better" capture the essence of what is the missing element in the piece. To what might you assert the reason for their lack of hope?
DeleteFirst off, let's look at the negatives of euthanasia; it's a process that not only gives lives worth and value, but it also disrespects the sanctity of life and may eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia, or what most call, murder. In a more religious perspective, euthanasia is going against the will of God, and makes others the ultimate judge on whether you live on or not. Although, this may be the case, I believe that voluntary euthanasia should be a common practice, given that the patient or the victim is completely informed of the situation and knows what they are doing. At the end of the day, they are responsible for their own lives and the outcome of those lives. But one might take advantage of that, for example, a doctor that would be willing to kill someone without "getting their hands dirty" would tell a suffering patient that he or she has little to no chance of survival, that the payment of the treatments that he or she is taking a part of now are putting a large toll on his or her family's money, or other lies like those. Villains such as these are possible and most likely real even in our times. However, I think that if there is a way around this threat, for example, a verification team for each patient that wants to go under the process of euthanasia, I think that this practice would be extremely helpful for not just the patient, but everyone that has cared for him or her. It is often said that torture is worse than death, and I completely agree with this statement, making someone suffer something that they would die than experience is without a doubt the worst thing that one could ever do to a human or any other life-form really. Even his or her loved ones will probably agree that he or she is in a better place, even if they're not religious, because he or she is no longer suffering. In conclusion: I believe euthanasia is a practice with good intensions and good results, as long as the patient undergoing such procedure is well aware of his or her situation, knows how it is affecting others besides him or herself, and his probability of getting better from whatever is causing him or her pain. A randomly-selected team of doctors would have to make sure that everything is verified and finally, the patients final words.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the context of OMAM, it is not a human that would be receiving the euthanasia treatment, but a canine, now the argument is that the dog is greatly suffering and that death seems like a more favorable path to let the dog's life continue. The rebuttal is that the dog would no longer be alive to live said "peaceful life" and that you can not get the patients opinion, because communication with her is near impossible. I think the decision is purely based on seeing if the dog's pain excels her will to live and if it does not, putting her out of her misery.
I believe that the only appropriate circumstance for euthanasia to be performed is only when there is absolutely no chance of the person surviving. Personally, I believe that a person has the right to choose to keep his/her life, and no one else has the right to take a life away, for any reason. Although a person may be in unimaginable pain, and it would seem that ending the pain would be priority, I believe that there are other ways to relieve someone's pain rather than killing the person. However, Euthanasia does save numerous people from wasted pain and suffering, and therefore I believe that Euthanasia should not be banned, but only used when the patient fully agrees to participate.
ReplyDeleteIn Of Mice and Men, Curley's dog is going through a grueling experience of suffering and pain, and it is suggested that the dog should be "put down" in order for his benefit. I believe that killing Curley's dog is the right thing to do, ONLY if there is absolutely no possible way of making the dog survive. If the dog even has the slightest chance of living, then I believe that euthanasia is the more moral thing to do.
Your last sentence confuses me.
DeleteAfter reading the article above on euthanasia, I'm going to have to agree on the fact that it should be legal. Although you are killing a person, you are helping them escape their harsh life. I'm going to have to agree with the argument about how people have an explicit right to die. If they find that death will soothe their pains, I find it totally reasonable.
ReplyDeleteIn the story Of Mice and Men performing euthanasia on Curly's dog was the right move. Curly's dog clearly was suffering and would continue to do so if it were still alive. The fact that Carlson shot the dog earlier on was much better. If Carlson were to wait and kill the dog later, it would have suffered much more in the time being.
In my opinion, i do not believe in Euthanasia. No matter how severe one's troubles are, they should not look to taking their own lives. I think life is a gift and should not be taken. There is always a way out. However, my stances is very biased, because I have never really experienced a situation where I have wanted to take my life. In the perspective of someone that is going through many difficulties, I would see Euthanasia as a positive escape from all the pain. I believe that "Death is a Private Matter" because really Euthanasia should be a decision made by the person that is having it done to them. It should not be chosen for the person. Depending on each individual's unique circumstance, I believe it is just, or unjust to do Euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in "Of Mice and Men" Carlson is cruel to suggest killing Candy's dog. The dog has no way in showing or expressing how it feels. The people have no way of knowing the dog's situation, so they do not have the right to take the dog's life. If there was anyone that has at least a bit of consent over the dog's death, it would be Candy. Carlson suggesting killing Candy's dog violates the dog and Candy's rights. Like Euthanasia, I believe death is a personal decision based on one's circumstances, not a decision given by others.
Brian!~ Stick to your guns. You have a perspective that is unique to the rest of your classmates.
DeleteAs a Christian, I am against Euthanasia. Personally, I believe God gave us a reason to exist in this world. This opinion explains the reason why Christian’s ban euthanasia and suicide. It wouldn’t be “right” to terminate one’s own life without the permission of God. Considerate this way: As a student, is it allowed to escape a class with your own will? As a worker, is it allowed to rest a day off without your boss’s permission? We, the creation of God, exist in purpose to carry on God’s will. Although the task might be hard, it is not our decision to cease the pain. Apart from the religious view, euthanasia gives too much authority to the doctors. According to the research, “about half of the doctors say that they are burned out but their workload” (Shannon Pettypiece). It is highly possible the doctors suggest the choice to death to their patients to reduce the workload they have. Lastly, a person’s death always influences others (this proves that the comment, “one’s death does not harm others” is wrong). No matter how unloved a person was, he would have been involved in some other person’s life. The absence of the person could cause a sincere grief, absence, or even confusion to others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in the story, “Of Mice an Men”, the death of Candy’s dog was not moral at all. How can Carlson know if Candy’s was in “pain”? Or even though the dog was in pain, how could Carlson know the dog wanted to end its life? Carlson’s opinion about the uselessness of the dog is not true as well. Candy’s dog is Candy’s one true friend. Carlson’s killing of the dog is equivalent to killing Candy’s best friend.
- Daniel J. Lee Section 4
A well-reasoned response with real-world applications. Well done.
DeleteI think the dog represents that state in which the men measure the quality of life or need for life by the use of it and are unable to recognize the value and complexity of their existance beyond their hardships. They figure, the dog is hurt and does not contribute. Therefore it would be an act of goodwill to kill it. Life, even in the grit and pain, isn't beautiful.
The next question that must be asked then is this: What kind of depravity would lead men to a perspective in which life is only valuable if there is usefulness?
Euthanasia is one of, if not the most touchy subject around today. Life is valuable, and we have developed to a point where we as humans can choose what the worth of another persons life is and whether or not to take it. The taking of someones life is also irreversible, and therefore once taken the only thing you're left with is a corpse and most likely regret. Also from a religious view, the act of murder is universally one of the worst possible acts you could commit, where the debate of whether euthanasia is considered murder. On the other hand, Euthanasia is the humane removal of possibly the worst people in the world who have murdered upwards of 1000 people. This is when we have to ask; Can the removal of a person from this world really be justified by their removal of others? If a hard working blue collar class man supporting his family ends up killing a single drug addicted homeless man claiming it is self defense, would he be euthanized in this situation since he did still murder a man or are we to weigh this lighter that other murder. I honestly do not care if euthanasia is decided upon to be the norm for murder or if it is completely considered taboo, as long as we enforce the result in a worldwide spread. As long as the world can come to an agreement on whether they believe a life is precious or disposable and that it should be a norm, i am ok with either end result.
ReplyDeleteNow, we come upon the situation presented in Of Mice and Men. People are complaining about Candy's dog, and recommending euthanasia, but Candy talks of how he has had the dog too many years. We see Candy's attachment to the dog result in his blindness towards his dog's misery. The dog is old and feeble, smelling bad and not of much use, but Candy still loves him and therefore would not want to force death upon him. I believe that, from personal experience, that if the owner comes to terms with the dog's inability to function, then the best choice is to humanely put down the dog. Candy should choose to put down his own dog for his choice rather than have someone else do it based on their own opinions.
-Cullen Ogden Section 4
I found interesting in your response the following: "As long as the world can come to an agreement on whether they believe a life is precious or disposable and that it should be a norm, i am ok with either end result." In the world of OMAM, what do you believe the common take is? Life is precious? Or disposable?
DeleteI have read the following article on Euthanasia. I am totally agreed with this statement, even though killing is a horrible thing ( taking away a life ) , sometimes if the person is in deep illness and knows that he will die, almost every person would ask by taking away his/her life .
ReplyDeleteIn the story of " Mice and Man " after the dog was killed Candy in a some point of view is reborn from his old life and after he hears the talk of George to Lennie about their dream land/farm.
The dog represented the attachment to his old life and when the dog dies new life reborns.
- Elizabeth Mikhailova Section 4
What is "this" when referring to this statement? Also, can you make references to the text to show that you have walked away with a thorough understanding of the text or make connections between the information relayed in the text and your perspectives?
DeleteI read the following article on euthanasia, and despite being against it at the time I now am supportive of Carlsons statement. I believe that a person's like is in his or her hands, and that if they can consciously ask for a mercy-killing and there is no possible or available treatment than it should be given to them. However, if there lies the possibility of successfully treating someone without any unacceptable side-effects, than it should not be given.
ReplyDeleteFor comatose patients that cannot express their desires, if their suffering will be terminal and they cannot be cured, than it should be given. If there is a treatment that the relatives can acquire for the patient, though, than it should not be given. Essentially, euthanasia should be used as an absolute last resort to end someones suffering or miserable existence.
On the subject of Candy's dog, I now believe that it was right for Carlson to have shot it. Due to its problems being sourced from old age, it could not be treated and it's general existence was painful and miserable, as well as making others around it miserable as well. However, I do not believe that Carlson should have forced the choice so hard on Candy, as I believe that an owner and the owner alone should have responsibility over his or her dog.
After reading this article, I believe that Euthanasia is appropriate and should be legal. Although the fact that killing someone may seem violent, it is actually an act of serving the person by saving him or her from pain he or she is suffering from. If the person is willing to die, I believe this wish should be granted.
ReplyDeleteAlthough i agreed to Euthanasia in real life, in the story "Of Mice and Men", I think the situation is slightly different. Carlson suggests Candy to shoot down his old, smelly, and useless dog. Candy tries to avoid this decision because of his relationship with his old dog, and how he raised the dog since it was a puppy. In this story, Candy's dog didn't have the choice to whether choose death or not. Therefore I believe in this case, Euthanasia shouldn't have been allowed. Even though others were caring for Candy's dog, they weren't sure of the dog's choice, which is the most important factor for Euthanasia.
Euthanasia is basically allowing a patient to be killed or leaving them to die because the patient is suffer due to a sickness, which is too painful to endure. Killing is usually looked down upon, however, some illnesses causes too much physical pain for the patient. The patient will have to suffer, and killing the patient can be considered better for the person. Some people argue, that Euthanasia, especially the involuntary Euthanasia, should not be allowed because it is consider cruel and immoral killing someone on purpose, and in case of involuntary Euthanasia, the patient might not want to die. I believe euthanasia should be allowed. If I was the patient, and I am suffering from a disease, I would want to be “put down”.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, Of Mice and Men, a character named candy is faced with a problem involving euthanasia. His dog is very old, and seems to be in pain every day. Killing the dog would put it out of its misery, but to Candy, the dog reminds him of his happy past. I think that it was the right choice to kill the dog, because if Candy really loved the dog, than ending its misery is, in my opinion this was the right action. I would stop the suffering of my dog if it were suffering everyday even though I love it.
After reading this article on Euthanasia, my perspective on this topic has changed. Before being informed of all the common arguments made whether pro or anti Euthanasia, I was against all form of this act. I believed it was wrong and going against Christianity in fact to do such a thing. Although now, interestingly enough, if a person is seriously ill and is out of options I believe it is okay to put them out of their misery if the pain is too much to handle. Although this act of "killing" may seem extremely violent, it also serves on the other side as being helpful or a good thing to people. If a seriously ill person undergoes this choice of Euthanasia, their pain will be taken away and their death can take place peacefully. It is not like this choice of being put to death is being forced upon any individual. The choice is made and thoroughly thought through as well for it is a serious thing to end a life in an unnatural way.
ReplyDeleteIn the book "Of Mice and Men", I support Carlson's argument in putting the dog to sleep permanently. Steinbeck even goes on to give specific details of how the poor dog is suffering and whimpering all the time from all the constant pain it has in its frail body. The fact that Candy is really only keeping the dog alive is actually quite selfish of him, because the dog is in so much misery. It is even said that the dog might even want to be killed, but nobody is taking action and doing it already. In all honesty, my dog at home right now is getting very old, and I have had her since 2004. She has bladder stones which cannot be removed due to the severity of the surgery process, has a gum disease, and is let alone 9 years old in dog years. She sleeps all day and whimpers and cries in the night. As painful as this is, I believe it may be in favor for my beloved dog to be put to sleep, only to put her out of her misery. Although I will be extremely sad over this issue, I do understand it is the better for her and that if I truly care about her I would relieve her from this constant pain.
Being a spiritually centered person, I was taught from the very beginning that having the life that I am living, not matter how well off or not I am, it is the greatest gift of all. There is a purpose that we are intended to fulfill and until the day that we die, we are constantly searching for the answers. Strangely enough, I find myself supporting euthanasia. I had three dogs all through out my life up until last year, I have seen people go through cancer and you know that out of loving them and not wanting to see anymore tears, death would be the best thing to happen for them. You do not wish them bad, but relief. Of course you remain strong for those around you, hoping they will shortly turn the corner and everything this will be alright but sometimes, in some circumstances people are just too far gone. Death should never be the solutions to our everyday problems, so I believe that it should be a medical decision with a families sign off. As for putting down the dog, it is hard to really know because commination is not an option. I have had three dogs, one- diabetic, when blind, and was so scared of the unknown around her she refused to move, second- became so sick she would throw up constantly and had been hit by several cars through out her life time, and my most resent dog- as happy as she was most of the time her bones were filled with cancer and she couldn’t even walk. I believe we did the right thing in putting them down. Sometimes it seems as though life becomes uncomfortable when a certain age is reached. Medically- in a deep coma, only on life support, extreme dependency, then yes I support it. I am not saying that dying is the way to cure anything else.
ReplyDeleteI believe that all humans have an explicit right to life, and that no other human can take that away from you. However, reciprocally, this also extends to the fact that we also have a right to death. "The right to life is not a right simply to exist." When contemplating death, it is important to not only recognize the repercussions on a local scale, but on a personal level as well. If a person's life is ended by another, the first effect that this will have will obviously be on the loved ones of the deceased. That person's family and friends would mourn their death and wish that the event had never occurred. However, often times the dead person's thought would reflect an opposing argument. This can be seen through two examples for people: suicide and disease. "This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die." "This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act (1961) made it legal for people to take their own lives." Although committing suicide is likely to bring more harm than help, this is not brought onto the dead person, but rather those that were nearby him/her. So, this means that any one person has the exclusive right to end their life if they deem that it is necessary. In a hospital setting, this can be seen but in the perspective of the living. If a person is in great pain or has no means to live consciously again, their family members may make the choice to stop the support and end their life. This isn't out of coldness or apathy, but rather it is to murder to relieve. It provides relief for the dead as they no longer have to feel pain, and it also provides relief for the living as they can finally move on from their loss. For these reasons, I am supportive of euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that putting down Candy's dog is an act of good will. Moreover, it should be analyzed as choosing the lesser of two evils, instead. Whether the dog dies or not, there will be those that suffer depending on the result. If the dog is killed, the obvious ones to feel sorrow and pain are the dog and Candy. However, if it is allowed to live, everyone else on the ranch has to deal with the presence of an undignified dog. Conversely, if the dog is not put down, Candy and the dog probably feel bad as well, but on a subconscious level. To Candy, his dog represents a hope from the past (when he had his hand, when he could work, when the dog was not crippled, etc.) that he can not have anymore. Hanging onto this sort of falseness is unhealthy for his mentality. It is also unhealthy for the dog as he is growing more tired and sick day by day. This is why I also support putting down the dog, not necessarily because murder is a good deed, but rather because it is the lesser of two evils.