Animal Rights Extremism PP8

What exactly do the animal rights extremist think they are accomplishing by violence? Is their violence successful in stopping the research being done with the use of animals? I would say not! The research is still going on and although they may be successful in maybe causing someone to stop working at the specific research firm they are employed by, this group is not accomplishing anything else but that. Research with the use of animals is still ongoing and I am totally opposed to the use of violence to accomplish something of this nature. This is not Auschwitz or the slavery days of the past when we had to resort to violence just to preserve the rights of the human being. I agree that animals should be treated with dignity and respect if they are to be used for research, any other treatment is inhumane. However, just like you can't change the beliefs of the extremists doing the bombing, you can't change the minds of the scientists conducting the research for what they believe to be for the 'greater good of mankind'. PETA and PCRM are mis-using funds when they take money raised to support their cause and use it to legally defend those that use violence to get their point across. This is just another form of terrorism and is completely irresponsible on PETA and PCRM's part. This type of behavior can be likened to defending terrorist acts against the US, so how is the violence of the animal extremists any different? Violence is violence no matter which way you slice it and non-profits or even for-profit organizations should be in support of any violence for peaceful outcome. What other options would these individuals have scientific researchers use to get the job done? How would they feel if we had human trials? Would that make them feel better since now we are not using animals for the research, but actual humans? Without the use of animals we would not have been able to do successfully do a heart transplant, which was successfully done on an animal before it was successfully done on a human. If we take on the distorted belief of Jerry Vlasak in which he believes that, "force is a poor second choice, but if that's the only thing that will work...there's certainly moral justification for that", then we as a society will not be able to move forward with scientific breakthroughs because we will all be in fear that some extreme organization will come after us because we are using plants or dirt for science and that's just ridiculous. (L.A. Times, Tim Rutten and scienceblog.com, Janet Stemwedel, 2009)

Right to Refuse Treatment PP7

I am against the state dictating what we can and cannot do with our selves, however, when it comes to children that must rely on an adult to make a rational decision between life or death, religion or modern medicine and the parents refuse to choose the modern medicine side, then let the courts go forward with their dictatorship. My opinion is that God has given the gifts and talents to specific people to improve quality of life and I agree with the judge's statement in the Kara Neumann case. He told the parents that, "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors." (BBC News Article, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:16 UK) You can't help but wonder what on earth people are thinking of when they make decisions on behalf of their children that could potential lead to that childs death. In the case of Daniel Hauser, I believe that the parents are in financial red tape and when they saw how much the cost of treatment would be to continue, they backed out. Why else would they begin treatment in the first place if they had been of this particular religious belief, the Nemenhah Band? You don't start the use of modern treatment if you are a solid believer of your faith ever, right? Like the Neumann's never once took Kara to the hospital because they believed 200% that their prayers would heal Kara. That is solid belief in your faith, however, wrong it may be, I don't question that the Neumann's had an alterior motive for what they did. I do question the Hauser's and what their motive was to seek treatment knowing it was successful and would allow Daniel to live and then to stop all of a sudden based on this ridiculous cult they, in my opinion, decided to become part of out of convenience. No it is not ethical for any parent to keep a minor child from receiving treatment that could give that child over a 95% rate of living a full life. If they could provide statistical proof that their alternative medicine choices had even close to just a 75% rate of improving the quality of life for their child then sobeit, but clearly, since one child has already died from ineffective prayer and the other child could die without more chemo treatment then the courts are within their rights to impose what they see best for the minor child.

Creating a Life to Save a Life PP6

Given what medical technology can do today that it couldn't do even 5 or 10 years ago, with regards to saving a life or improving the quality of life for a person, I would have made the same decision that these parents made to save their first born, Andres. The reality is since we now understand the extreme benefit of stem cells and their potential to reverse or completely get rid of a disease or provide the potential to have a new organ is just ground breaking science. I agree with the parent's decision because one, it is within their rights to choose to do this and two if we all could afford to do what these parents did for their oldest child, I believe that 85% of us would do the same thing. Let me also say that every day doctors provide the service of 'medical practice'. Literally, doctors practice medical services and procedures on us every time we go to see one of them. It is not concrete medical science and never will be. Considering this fact, I have reservations about how stem cell usage could eventually be used for mallicious purposes and that I would not agree to. Morally, if you are of a particular religious belief then one could have issue with stem cell usage and especially with regards to becoming pregnant specifically to make sure that your other child could live a longer life with the potential to be disease free because of the new born child that was genetically tested to make sure he/she was a donor match for the child with the disease. What if the child was not a donor match? Would the parents have aborted the child and tried again? I do not support that at all. Then I have to question, since doctors practice medicine daily, how on earth could they possibly give the parents any assurances since this area of medicine is still so new? Morally, what obligations do the doctors have to themselves about tampering with this type of science still knowing full well that there are no guarantees and all the testing could say this is what should happen but we always have room for that margin of error of what could happen? Then I have my belief that all things happen for a reason and that if the risks that were taken that led to medical history being made, since we can remember, weren't taken at all where we would be today? It's medical breakthroughs like stem cells, heart transplants, face transplants, etc. that allow us to be able to decide whether or not the risk is worth it. In this case I believe the risk was worth it.

Abortion in AZ HB2564 PP5

There are several issues on the table with regards to whether or not the new AZ abortion law is ethical or not. First, making a woman have to speak with a doctor in person about her options and 24 hours before the abortion is done is unethical, in my opinion, since this could cause the woman to change her mind since she may be embarrased that she is even in this position or worse, she could be pregnant from an abusive family member and she may only get one chance to visit the doctor to get the abortion done. This mandate of orally and in person, could totally mess up her chances to take advantage of a one-time window that she can't afford to waste on a consultation visit. Second, mandating that a notary be involved for parental consent is a violation of constitutional law to privacy. Although the requirement is that this information placed in the notaries book remain confidential, it's not possible to do 100% of the time. There were plenty of times where I had to get something notarized and was able to read names and reasons of previous persons that had signed the book before me. Unless they plan on coming up with an individual book for every person that this requirement would be placed upon, this is not going to happen. Third, who goes to a total stranger, in this case a judge, to determine if an abortion is in the best interest of minor based on the minor's maturity level? I believe that if any minor were mature we wouldn't have to deal with most of the issues that come from them in the first place. It's life experience that brings about maturity and until a minor has experienced an abortion or being a single mother at least once, then we can all assume that, unless they became pregnant through some criminal sexual act, they are immature and will most likely not know what is or is not in their best interest. In addition to that, the judge will have no concrete background information, other than what he will be told by someone acting on behalf of the minor (which is a joke since I have had to deal with that part of the justice system myself personally) or what he will read in some paperwork drawn up against allowing the minor to have the abortion. He will not have solid information that the minor has parents that are drug addicts and the minor's self esteem is so low that she is looking for love in all the wrong places. Basically, the court will hope to see a level of responsibility in a minor which is contradictory to the whole process since if the minor was responsible then they would've avoided this pregnancy at all costs and because self esteem plays a role in a young woman's maturity, if she has low self esteem then the court will find that she is not mature enough to make decisions in her best interest. Then there are the issues of whether or not a judge is pro-choice or pro-life and I would bet my life that whichever way the judge's position is will sway him all the time to choose the option that goes with his belief system and not what's in the best interest of the minor. How then will our judicial system pick someone that is completely non-biased when it comes to abortions so that all minors can have a fair preceding? I also question why is it necessary to tell a woman of the anatomical characteristics of the fetus? Are we purposely trying to sway her to change her mind with this law if it is required that she be told if she was going to have a boy or girl? Last but not least, the contradiction that a minor can be automatically emancipated if they will not receive any finanacial assistance from their guardian so they can apply for public assistance, but...this public assistance cannot be used to get an abortion-what's the point? My take on this entire bill is if it's not broke then don't fix it. The changes to this bill just leave a bad feeling in my gut that this is just not going to benefit minors and the choices that should be made between them and their parents.

Death and Dying and Catholic Health Care Services Directives-Ethical or not

Based on the ethical and religious directives listed by the USCCB, I would have to say that I agree with the majority of the directives listed.



I agree that patients should be informed of all of their options regarding their illness and inevitable death which then would allow them to discuss options with their loved ones and express their choices on how and what treatments to accept so long as the treatment provides for a significant measure of comfort during their ordeal leading up to their death.



I also agree that that a person should not be required to have any burdensome treatments, if they so choose, that would cause undue stress (physically, emotionally, spiritually or financially) or pain on their loved ones or themselves.



I also agree that a person should have the right to choose whether or not to continue with life-sustaining procedures since I believe that it the full right of a person to choose how they would want to live out their last days or months.



I agree with these directives because of the experience I have had with several family members living through painful and debilitating cancers; personally my mother. Through the experience of watching her illness take over her life and know how burdensome she felt to my brother and I she made sure that any decisions were mutually agreed upon and the easiest on my brother and I (as if any decision could be easy when watching this disease consume your mom)!



I stand by the directive to encourage people to donate organs since there is such a shortage of organs today. My belief is that we should all be required to make a decision on organ donation at the time we apply for a driver's license. If there are religious beliefs that would keep a person from being able to donate then the application should allow for an opt-out due to religious beliefs, but any other person should have to decide when they apply for their license.



I do not agree, however, that if someone is suffering and the pain cannot be alleviated, they should be forced to reconcile with the 'redemptive suffering'. That is outright torture to me, since I watched how much pain my mother was in and it wasn't until she was under the care of hospice that her pain was alleviated and she was able to function without crying daily!



I believe the human right to choose whatever a person thinks is best for themselves and their family regardless of religious belief. I also believe that person should discuss their choices with their loved ones so that there is no issue of confusion on what that person would want during their ordeal.



Until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes you really can't say what or how you would behave until that moment is upon you!