National Park Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

National Park - Research Paper Example Furthermore, primeval indications of human adjustment to virtually unsympathetic environment are also present (UNESCO, 2013). In 1979, the park was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site (UNESCO, 2013); and in 2010, through the America the Beautiful Quarters program, it was revered with its own personal coin. Nature and Science Grand Canyon National Park possesses a geological uniqueness that is manifested by its rare physical characteristics. Unlike most national parks, the Grand Canyon, as what it is famously known, stages a wide-ranging structure of tributary canyons (NPS, 2013), which likewise conjoins size, depth, and bared layers of vibrant and multi-coloured rocks. The canyon is whittled out by the cut of the Colorado River. The park is generally divided into two main public areas: The North Rim and the South Rim. The remainder of the park is very rocky, bleak, and nearly isolated; nevertheless, many of these distant locations can be reached by backcountry roads and pack trail. Mo reover, the park does not only boast its well-polished, smooth rocks, but it also shows off its evergreen forests that makes the park a complete package for tourists and hikers alike. This rich diversity has further been proven by the identification of 1000 plant species found in the park (UNESCO, 2013). Environmental Factors and Issues Recently, Uranium mining has become rather common in the area (Richardson, 2011; Reese, 2010). Thus, environmental factors that may cause some degree of damage to the park have become a concern to its managers. It has been observed that for more than five decades, there have been found radioactive residues that are accruing in and around the Grand Canyon (Richardson, 2011). Nowadays, the National Park Service warns the visiting public to avoid â€Å"drinking and bathing† (Grand Canyon Trusts, 2012) in the Colorado River surrounding the Grand Canyon. While to infer that the water pollution brought about by the radioactive residues found in the Colorado River is not definitive and conclusive, indeed, the mining and transportation of radioactive materials can potentially cause pernicious effects not just to the plants, but most importantly, to the people visiting the canyon. Today, a 20 year moratorium has been ordered by Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, to avoid mining activities in and around the canyon (Grand Canyon Trusts, 2012). Natural Features and Ecosystems Grand Canyon’s ecological and geological richness are displayed in various forms, magnificence and environmental significance. A World Heritage Site, Grand Canyon National Park holds more than a lot of natural features and ecosystems that could absolutely capture every person’s eyes. Caves and Karst System Grand Canyon National Park contains an estimated 1000 caves called speleothems (NPS, 2013); although, out of this number, there are only about 330 that have been recorded or inventoried. The caves found in the park are distinctive in shape and location. Unlike the usual caves that we see, the caves in the Grand Canyon burst out of the plateaus’ laterals. These caves have also unusual shapes and takes irregular forms. According to the National Park Service (2013), archaeological remains have been found in some of these caves i.e. split-twig figurines and do have â€Å"unique biological systems.† In addition to caves, Grand Canyon is widely known for its karst system: the geological formation formed by the disbanding of layers such as limestone. The park’

Macroeconomic Performance of Canada during the Recent Crisis Assignment

Macroeconomic Performance of Canada during the Recent Crisis - Assignment Example Some countries were affected immensely while others were affected less. For instance, China was never affected as Australia (Organization for Economic Co-Operation†¦, 2006; Pg. 132). The Chinese economic growth never dropped below six percent while on the other hand, Australian economy was adversely affected up to a point that it experiences no growth in its economy for the whole quarter. Other economies including Mexico, Japan, and the United Kingdom had their annual GDPs contracting by between 5 and 10 percent per quarter a phenomenon that lasted between and seven quarters consecutively (Daudelin and Schwanen, 2008; Pg. 103). Notably, Canada also was not affected greatly be the recent global economic recession; therefore, this paper aims at analyzing whether its management during this economic trying times was due to its effective economic policies or just a mare luck. Introduction Numerous research works have since been conducted on the 20060 to 2011 global economic effect an d recovery of these economies from such crisis. Most reports from these research works indicate that economies that performed better despite the effects of global economic crisis have affective capitalized banking sectors, current account surplus, low loan to deposit rations, low growth rates and levels of credit to GDP private sectors, and high foreign exchange reserves (Piersanti, 2012; Pg. 44). Therefore, it appropriate to note that the economies that managed to move from the economic crises that were facilitated by global economic crisis had efficient and adversely effective policy decisions. Moreover, their financial crises were well managed by their institutions that reduced the vulnerability of these economies’ to the financial crisis. Canada managed the global economic crisis and its economic developments despite the crisis were reflected on its sustained economic growth that was reflected mainly on the domestic spending and its continued economic growth. Additionally , it stemmed from the debts of the debt crisis affecting the euro zone sovereign. Numerous factors are preempted to have helped Canada through the global economic crisis. Some of the postulated factors include the federal fiscal plans that favored low borrowing costs; thus, enhancing the market credibility (Organization for Economic Co-Operation†¦, 2006; Pg. 78). The Canadian banking system was and has remained sound and effective that it never required the taxpayers to bail it out during the crisis. Canada has also become one of the strong merging economies that most of the world economies shifted their purchasing power towards thereby stabilizing its economy. Despite these measures, the Canadian economy was slightly affected by global financial crisis. For instance, the crisis threatened its financial market by lowering business confidence among investors (Daudelin and Schwanen, 2008; Pg. 151). This lowered the interest rates thereby increasing the mortgage debts and increasi ng housing prices. However, same financial effect or effects never affected Canada as an economy but affected some parts or cities with Canada. Additionally, Canada for long time has enjoyed credible policies and strong institutions. Moreover, for many years, the Canadian economy has been pegged on capital input and increasing labor. The multi factor productivity growth has declined and weakened further for the decades. Canada has also registered poor R & D and partnering rates. Therefore, as means of curbing these problems, Canada opted increase its innovative measures

Explain Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Explain Utilitarianism Essay Utilitarianism was developed in the 18th century by Hutcheson, who used the phrase ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ to describe his theory. Hutcheson’s idea, seeks to find a rational means of assessing how best to put this promotion of happiness into practice. It is split into two types; Act Utilitarianism, this is the earliest form in which what is deemed right is based on the assessment of results of a particular action, and Rule Utilitarianism which allows to be taken into account the general benefit to society that occurs when people follow general rules. It is argued that utilitarianism is a relativist, consequentialist and teleological system of ethics, prescribing no fixed moral rules and judging an action by its consequences or end results. Bentham and Mill each argued respectively for these types of Utilitarianism and thus their beliefs differ. Bentham was born in London at time of huge scientific and social change. He looked to produce a modernised approach to morality which would suit the changing society of the industrial age he grew up in. This was also the era of the French and American revolutions. He argued that humans were motivated by pleasure and pain â€Å"nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain†. This later on became known as Act Utilitarianism. Bentham believed that everyone had an equal right to happiness irrespective of their situation or status in life and argued that everyone counted equally in the assessment of the benefits of an action. He believed that overall, this would benefit the individual who did so and this would lead to that persons greatest happiness as well. His theory is democratic as pleasure cannot be for one person alone. Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus this is what Bentham thought was an empirical process for making moral decisions, it weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It asks you to consider seven points: 1. Purity (an act that causes only pleasure is better than one that causes the same amount of pleasure mixed with a little pain. When either pleasure or pain is at its extremes it is more pure however when mixed its purity is less. ) 2. Remoteness (the more distant the benefits, in either space or time, the less weight we should give them in making our decision. For example how long will it take for the pleasure of the action to take effect. ) 3. Intensity (the less intense the pleasure of an action the less valuable that action is. However, if the action leads to intense pleasure then its value goes way up. ) 4. Certainty (the certainty criteria refers to the probability of the pleasure resulting from the act. So basically how likely a certain action will cause a cause a certain action. If you have to choose between an action which might cause pleasure and one that will definately cause the disired pealsure then you go with that action. ) 5. Extent (The more people enjoy the pleasure, the better. This was not among the original criteria described by Bentham, but was added by John Stuart Mill. ) 6. Duration (the duration of the pleasure caused by an act must also be taken into account when assessing the goodness of the act. Short bursts of pleasure or short lasting pleasure is viewed as less valuable than lasting pleasure. So acts which last for long periods of time are preferred to those which are short lasting. ) 7. Consequence (The consequence of an act is the likelihood that the pleasures or pains that it causes will be followed by similar pleasures or pains. If the happiness that an act causes is likely to be followed by more happiness, then that act is better than a similar act that will cause only one instance of happiness. It is basically how many times the pain or pleasure will occur.) For example if five guards were enjoying torturing one prisoner the hedonic calculus would suggest that this is ok because more pleasure is occurring than pain. If the probable pain of an action outweighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong. He believed this was the way of calculating happiness as a result of the course of an action and by this he was making the basis of deciding whether an action should be considered right or wrong. However going back to the guard’s example, is beating up a prisoner morally right because more people are enjoying it than feeling pain from it? During the 19th century Mill changed Bentham’s theory, Bentham implied any pleasure is of equal value â€Å"pushpin is equal to poetry† whereas Mill saw pleasures as higher and lower. He recognised that it was easier to settle for the more immediate and sensual pleasures like eating or drinking rather than the nobler and perhaps more refined ones such as poetry or opera. Mill criticised Bentham for focusing morality on pleasure alone, which seemed rather base to him. Therefore he decided to introduce a theory of utilitarianism for everyone, this replaced pleasure with happiness. He believed in quality not quantity of happiness. For Mill, happiness was defined as something which is cultured and spiritual than just physical. He distinguished this as higher and lower pleasures. He wrote â€Å"it is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied† Mill recognised that there were different ways of assessing the value of happiness. Mill unlike Bentham suggested a positive place for rules within an overall utilitarianist approach. Another difference between Bentham and Mill lies in the difference between Act and Rule theories of utilitarianism. Bentham thought each individual action should be treated separately without any rules to guide the individual; whereas Mill proposed that you should make rules based on the consequences which tend to follow certain actions. For example killing someone tends to cause pain, so we should have a rule against killing people. Therefore Mill and Bentham arrived to two very different approaches of morality. Mills outlook was very different to that of Bentham’s. Overall, however their weaknesses outweigh their strengths. They are not very convincing as ethical systems, and it is my opinion that some other approach to ethics is required in order to do the morally right thing. An advantage of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is that it considers the consequences and happiness which result from actions; this seems a sensible approach to ethics. The theory is also flexible and easy to apply; it does not describe many confusing or difficult rules and provides a simple method for decision making. The theory also enables difficult decision making through its relativism. For example it would allow us to sacrifice individuals if it is of great benefit to society. The problem with Bentham’s theory however is that it is truly relativistic, so any conceivable action could be allowed for example, killing prisoners because five guards get pleasure from it. It also justifies the suffering of the innocent under a majority. It further allows cruel or sadistic pleasure, since Bentham regarded all pleasure as equal, this was first thought of by a philosopher called Bernard Williams. Mill’s theory offers many advantages which get around the problems of Bentham and Act Utilitarianism. By distinguishing between the quality of pleasures, Mill rules out the possibility of sadism like in the case of the prison guards enjoying torturing a prisoner. Also, Mill is stating that certain actions are explicitly prohibited because they tend to promote pain. So, he would not allow killing, no matter how much it was enjoyed. However, Mill’s theory lacks the flexibility of Bentham’s, which means that sensible rule breaking is no longer possible. For example you could not tell small lies, even to protect others. There is another weakness in Mill’s idea of different qualities of pleasure this is, how can we judge what makes pleasure higher or lower? As surely this is a subjective matter, as opinions and preferences vary from person to person. It might also be argued that the concept of a competent judge is vague, since it is not clear whether we can really identify one. In conclusion, the theories put forward by Bentham and Mill fail to provide a convincing or useful approach to ethics. On the one hand, Bentham’s views are strikingly relativistic, allowing any pleasure. On the other hand, Mill’s Rule system lacks the flexibility to make sensible choices in difficult situations. It may be that some other and more modern version of the theory can overcome these problems, such as preference utilitarianism put forward by Peter Singer. Preference utilitarianism bases itself on the idea used in act utilitarianism, that the principle of utility is the most important basis of moral decision making. This principle is about maximising pleasure and preventing pain. Preference utilitarianism retains this but simply modifies it to be subjective, that peoples preferences should be maximised not pleasure over pain. This is a simple way to be personal, allowing everyone their own say rather than presuming pleasure is always desirable. For example eating 30 bars of chocolate when obese may not cause pleasure as it is worsening their obesity however it is the persons preference to do this. If we could strike a balance between favouring firm moral principles and paying attention to significant consequences or the all-round wellbeing of society. Such a compromise offers a more promising approach to ethics than the classical forms of Utilitarianism put forward by Mill and Bentham.

Arguments For and Against Euthanasia

Arguments For and Against Euthanasia Euthanasia: Whose decision is it I. Introduction In a 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, an article titled Its Over Debbie describes how an anonymous doctor administers a fatal dose of morphine to a woman dying of ovarian cancer (Anonymous, 1988). In a 1989 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, ten doctors associated with the nations leading hospitals and medical schools declare their belief that it is not immoral for a physician to assist in the rational suicide of a terminally ill person (Wanzer, et. al., 1989). In 1991, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed account written by Dr. Timothy Quill which discussed his decision to help a patient suffering from leukemia commit suicide (Quill, 1991). In 1990, Dr. Jack Kervorkian uses his suicide machine to help a woman suffering from Alzheimers disease, one Janet Adkins, end her life in the back of a Volkswagen bus (Risen, 1990). Janet was the first of twenty patients who have been aided by Kervorkian in the past three years. He rem ains committed to his practice. In 1991 the Hemlock Society publishes a how-to manual on committing suicide. Entitled Final Exit, it zooms to the top of the national best seller lists and stays there for several weeks (Altman, 1991). Each of these events has served to provoke ever widening media coverage of the issues surrounding euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and a national debate has arisen around these practices. This debate is not merely limited to attorneys and physicians. Suddenly, these issues and this debate are now a part of life in mainstream America, and many Americans face dilemmas that did not exist in simpler times; dilemmas that many would rather not have to face. II. Review of the Literature a. Euthanasia: The Nature of the Debate It is this sudden change in the way Americans are dealing with death, the nature and scope of the debate about dying, which prompts this analysis of the issues surrounding euthanasia. This debate is largely a debate about what is ethical. Questions the debate attempts to answer include: Is it right to commit suicide? Is it ethical for someone else to help? Is it right to put others to death at their own request or at the request of family members? These questions are important because they help to define our society and our culture. The way people deal with and respond to issues of life, ritual, and death serves to shape the nature of our society. This is why society must attempt to decide what is right; what is ethical conduct for the various actors in our communities when we face death. There are several reasons why this debate has surfaced in the 1980s. Death is nothing new, it has existed for thousands of years. Each culture has developed its own rituals and mechanisms for dealin g with death. These mechanisms serve to provide solace, a sense of continuity, and allow the culture to continue even as the members of the community cannot. However, our own culture has experienced many shattering changes that have altered the nature of dying. Suddenly we are forced to rethink the issue of death and we must decide what types of behavior are ethical when someone is dying. Before we can examine the debate about the ethics of dying, we must examine why the debate exists. Perhaps the main reason that death has changed in western culture has to do with advances in medicine and technology. Many of the diseases that have historically killed people are now no longer a threat to most individuals. Medicine has made a variety of advances in the treatment of diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, polio, influenza, and measles. People now rarely die of such traditional causes. Life expectancy has risen to almost 75 years in the United States. The quality o f life has also changed fundamentally during the past 100 years. Not only does almost everyone in the United States have enough to eat, but people eat higher on the food chain. There is a great deal more meat and animal fat in modern diets. Just these differences alone have changed death significantly. People now develop heart disease, adult onset diabetes, cancers, and AIDS. These types of diseases are more the result of lifestyle than bacteria. With these new diseases, suffering is often more prolonged and treatment is frequently quite painful. Also, as people are living longer, the diseases of the aged have become increasingly prevalent. Many more people now suffer from problems like senile dementia and Alzheimers disease. These diseases ruin the mind while preserving the body, allowing life to continue long after any quality that the life might have is gone. If what we die of has changed, perhaps the way that we die has changed even more. Throughout history, death has been a family affair. People usually died in the home after a short bout with an illness or as the result of an accident. Today, increasingly, death occurs in an institutional setting such as a convalescent home or a hospital, after a variety of technologies are applied in an attempt to prolong the life of the sick person. Often these technologies can be quite effective. People can now live for months and even years attached to a variety of tubes and technol ogies. About 75% of all deaths in 1987 occurred in hospitals and long term care facilities, up from 50% in 1950 . . . The Office of Technology Assessment Task Force estimated in 1988 that 3775 to 6575 persons were dependent on mechanical ventilation and 1,404,500 persons were receiving artificial nutritional support. This growing capability to forestall death has contributed to the increased attention to medical decisions near the end of life. (CEJA, 1992, p. 2229) People realize that the chances of facing the institutionalization of death increase daily, and they feel a profound lack of control. Surveys have consistently indicated that a large majority of people in the United States would like to be allowed to end their lives before incurable and painful diseases finally kill them (CEJA, p. 2229). Because of the changes that have impacted death, with regard to both how and where we die, the debate about how we should be allowed to die has been renewed. This paper will examine the s everal facets of this debate. It will define the terms that are relevant to the debate, examine the legal state of euthanasia today, discuss the ethics of euthanasia by examining arguments made by proponents and opponents of euthanasia, and by applying several Normative Ethical Theories to the issue. Finally, it will explore the power implications that infuse the debate on euthanasia and present arguments in favor of moving toward a care based ethic of dying and away from the current rights based ethic. b. Definitions If we are to effectively understand the debate about the right to die in the United States, it is imperative that a few basic terms be understood. The first and most important term is euthanasia. Originating from the Greek terms eu (happy or good) and thanatos (death), euthanasia means literally happy death or good death. The American Medical Associations Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs defines the term as follows: Euthanasia is commonly defined as the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way for reasons of mercy. In this report, the term euthanasia will signify the medical administration of a lethal agent to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patients intolerable and incurable suffering. (p. 2230) Other sources have defined euthanasia variously: The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions of diseases. (Wolhandler, 1984, p. 363), . . . to refuse un wanted medical treatment or to have ongoing care withdrawn even though the patient will die if treatment is terminated. (Adams, et. al., 1992, p. 2021). Euthanasia is a general term that can actually mean a variety of different things depending upon the context in which it is used. For this reason, a number of supporting terms has become the convention when discussing euthanasia. These terms help to narrow the subject matter and distinguish between different types of euthanasia. The important terms that help to subdivide and classify euthanasia by type are voluntary/involuntary and active/passive. Voluntary euthanasia is a death performed by another with the consent of the person being killed. This consent may be in writing as in the case of a living will or advance directive. Involuntary euthanasia is a death performed by another without the consent of the person being killed. The AMAs Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs makes three distinctions concerning consent and euthanasia: Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia that is provided to a competent person on his or her informed request. Non-voluntary euthanasia is the provision of euthanasia to an incompetent person according to a surrogates decision. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia performed without a c ompetent persons consent.(p. 2230) Wolhandler compares the terms in a different context.Those who condemn euthanasia of both kinds would call the involuntary form murder and the voluntary form a compounded crime of murder and suicide if administered by the physician, and suicide alone if administered by the patient himself. As far as voluntary euthanasia goes, it is impossible to separate it from suicide as a moral category; it is, indeed, a form of suicide. Voluntary euthanasia may involve participation of second parties. (p. 366) The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not nearly as clear as the previous distinction. Although many authors claim that the difference between the two types cannot be identified or is irrelevant at best, much of the debate on the subject is over this distinction and most of the current legal issues turn on this distinction. While this paper will contend that the difference between the two should not be recognized, it is both useful and important to know where the line is drawn. The AMA, which is strongly opposed to active euthanasia, has seen fit to endorse passive euthanasia in appropriate situations. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs makes the distinction as follows: The physician is obligated only to offer sound medical treatment and to refrain from providing treatments that are detrimental, on balance, to the patients well being. When a physician withholds or withdraws a treatment on the request of a patient, he or she has fulfilled the obligation to offer sound treatment to the patient. The obligation to offer treatment does not include an obligation to impose treatment on an unwilling patient. In addition, the physician is not providing a harmful treatment. Withdrawing or withholding is not a treatment, but the foregoing of a treatment. (p. 2231) According to Wolhandler, (p. 367) it is t he nature of the acts performed by the second party that distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia. The courts have held that acts of omission (removal of respiratory assistance, hydration, and feeding tubes) are allowable behavior. Although unplugging a respirator and switching off a dialysis machine are arguably acts of commission, an increasing number of judges and commentators have accepted these acts as permissible passive euthanasia in both voluntary and involuntary settings. Gifford (1993) describes the difference between the two types of euthanasia this way: Passive euthanasia involves allowing a patient to die by removing her from artificial life support systems such as respirators and feeding tubes or simply discontinuing medical treatments necessary to sustain life. Active euthanasia, by contrast, involves positive steps to end the life of a patient, typically by lethal injectiond (p. 1546) The right to passive euthanasia has also been termed the right to die by some authors (Adams, et. al., p. 2021-22). With an understanding of the different types of euthanasia, we can now define some other key terms. It is important to understand how physician assisted suicide differs from euthanasia, and it is also necessary to define the terms advance directive and competence since they are crucial in determining the difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The term physician assisted suicide is somewhat self-explanatory. It occurs when a physician provides aid to a patient so they can commit suicide. However, it is also necessary to see the difference between this type of action and euthanasia. The AMAs Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs states that Euthanasia and assisted suicide differ in the degree of physician participation. Euthanasia entails a physician performing the immediate life ending action (e.g., administering a lethal injection). Assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patients death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (e.g., the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). (p. 2231) It is important to realize that the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide lies in the behavior of the physician. This difference in behavior has recently become a major legal battleground that will be explored in the following pages. The advance directive has recently become an important new device to aid the terminally ill. Many states have legalized the advance directive, partly in an attempt to avoid dealing with problems associated with active euthanasia, and partly to help ease the burdens on the dying and their families. Singer (1992) provides a good definition of advance directive and explains how it is used. An advance directive is a written document completed by a competent person that aims to guide medical treatment after the person becomes incompetent. There are two types: instruction directives, which focus on the types of life-sustaining treatment that the person would want under various clinical situations, and proxy directives, which focus on who the person would want to make health care decisions if the person were unable to do so. (p. 22) The advance directive is useful because it can theoretically eliminate the need for involuntary euthanasia. It ensures that a voluntary decision is made in advance, even if the individual could not make such a situation at a later date. If everyone made use of the advance directive, there would be no need to debate policy decisions that must be made in the case of an incompetent person on life support. Because advance directives have neither been accepted nor widely used by the general public, many of the problems that could potentially be solved remain. This situation caused right to die groups in both California and Washington to propose ballot initiatives that would legalize active euthanasia (Gifford, p. 1550-51). Although active euthanasia is not legal in any United States jurisdiction, passive euthanasia is generally allowed at the request of a competent individual. Because of this it is critical to understand what constitutes competence. Courts have defined legal competence as the mental ability to make a rational decision, which includes the ability to perceive, appreciate all the relevant facts, and to reach a rational judgement upon such facts. In the euthanasia context, legal competence is the incurable s ability to understand that in requesting active euthanasia he is choosing death over life. Only clear and convincing evidence should suffice for a finding of an incurables competence. (Wolhandler, p. 366-67) c. The Legal State of Euthanasia With a knowledge of the meaningful terms that will be involved, it is important to discuss the legal state of euthanasia in the United States today. As technology has placed more and more people on life sustaining devices in this country, the courts have had to deal with several cases that pertain to euthanasia in a variety of ways. This section of the paper is designed to review those cases briefly and to assess how the rulings in those cases have set the policy for the practice of euthanasia today. The courts first dealt with euthanasia in the Quinlan case in 1976. Karen Ann Quinlan lapsed into a coma after mixing a variety of pills and alcohol at a party. After it became apparent that she would not be revived, her parents went to court to have her respirator removed. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that her parents had the right to have the respirator removed and that Karen be allowed to die. Ironically, because her parents did not request removal of feeding and hydration tubes , she survived nine more years curled in a fetal position in a New Jersey rest home (Wolhandler, p. 366). In this case, the New Jersey court effectively sanctioned nonvoluntary passive euthanasia. The next prominent case was decided by the New York Supreme Court in Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz. Here the court found that a competent patient had the right to refuse medical treatment, allowing for a patient to decide in cases of voluntary passive euthanasia (Gifford, p. 1575-76). Later, in Satz v. Perlmutter, a Florida District Court of Appeals came to essentially the same conclusion (Wolhandler, p. 372-73). In Severns v. Wilmington Medical Center, the Delaware Supreme Court gave the husband of a comatose woman the right of guardianship and the authority to remove her respirator or withhold other treatment as he saw fit. In this case the court relied on previous decisions made in Quinlan, Saikewicz, and Satz for its finding (Wolhandler, p. 373). In Thor v. Su perior Court (California), the court granted the request to withhold treatment from a severely depressed quadriplegic only after a psychiatric evaluation determined that the request was based on poor quality of life and not just on severe depression (Pugliese, 1993, p. 1326). The courts have not restricted the right of passive euthanasia to just the terminally ill. Elizabeth Bouvia was a relatively young woman who suffered from severe cerebral palsy and attempted to starve herself to death in a California hospital by requesting the removal of a nasogastric feeding tube. She was denied this request because the hospital feared it would be party to suicide. The California court of appeals ordered the physicians to remove the tube and argued that she had the right to enlist the assistance of others in ending her life (Sprung, 1990, p. 2213). The courts have also found that doctors and hospitals must at least obtain consent from third parties that would have a significant interest in the patients outcome if the patient is incompetent. In the case of Helga Wanglie, a Minnesota court denied a hospital administrator permission to disconnect her respirator against the wishes of her husband (Gifford, p. 1571). In sum, these cases indicate an emerging consensus that courts will generally allow treatment to be withheld from patients who are terminally ill if it is in the best interests of the patient and at the request of patients or family members. It is this emerging consensus that made the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in the Cruzan case so interesting. In the only euthanasia case heard to date by the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices, in a 5-4 decision, allowed to stand the decision made by the Missouri Court of Appeals not to disconnect the life support apparatus from Nancy Cruzan (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 1990). Although the court did find that a right to refuse treatment could be found in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and did not prohibit the courts from looking in other areas for this right (Adams, et. al., p. 2025), it also upheld the right of the State of Missouri to require . . . clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Cruzan would have desired withdrawal of these treatments. (Newman, 1991, p. 175). In the realm of physician assisted suicide, only two major cases have been decided. In the case against Dr. Timothy Quill that arose because of the publication of his article in the New England Journal of Medicine, the grand jury for the state of New York refused to return an indictment (Bender, 1992, p. 524). In the more publicized case of Dr. Jack Kervorkian, the courts have not yet decided on the constitutionality of the Michigan law that bans physician-assisted suicide. Kervorkian is currently free on bond and continues to aid other patients who wish to commit suicide (Pugliese, p. 1300-05).(1) A brief assessment of the cases described above indicates that the courts have essentially legalized voluntary passive euthanasia, finding justification to refuse or have medical treatment withheld in the constitutional right to privacy, the common law right of self determination, or the more general concept of autonomy (Gifford, p. 1575-78). With regard to involuntary passive euthanasia, the courts are generally supportive of the practice, but they have the right to insist on a more stringent standard of evidence before approving such procedures. The courts have generally employed a balancing test that weighs the patients right to privacy and self-determination against the interest of the state in preserving life. The interests of potential third parties that might desire that the patient continue to live, and the ethical image of the medical profession (Adams, et. al., p. 2022). In cases of assisted suicide, some states have laws against the practice, the AMA forbids it, most juries are refusing to find the actors guilty, and the courts have yet to decide the question. Both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia remain illegal. d. The Debate About Euthanasia The movement to legalize active euthanasia has existed for quite some time. Initially popularized in Britain during the 19th century, it gained some adherents in the United States during the 1920s. It was the Nazi program of active euthanasia in the 1930s and 4os that cast a pall of disrepute over the practice that remains today. The revival of this movement today can largely be attributed to the onset of the issues discussed at the beginning of this paper, and to the efforts of the Hemlock Society, a group of individuals that actively promotes the right to dignified death. The Hemlock Society recently promoted ballot initiatives in both Washington and California that would have legalized active euthanasia in those states (Gifford, 1993). This revival of the right to die movement has led to hotly contested debate about the practices of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This paper will attempt to encapsulate this debate by presenting the arguments made by both opponents and supporters of these procedures. Since arguments made by both sides are used in cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the generic term euthanasia is used for simplicity to suggest the concept of aided death unless otherwise indicated. Those opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide present a variety of arguments in support of a ban. e. The Case Against Euthanasia Euthanasia destroys societal respect for life. By becoming commonplace and used in medical practice along with more traditional methods of healing, society becomes desensitized toward death to the point where life is no longer valuable. This attitude serves to degrade humanity and leads to a variety of social ills. In a society that devalues life, people have no compunctions about committing violent crimes and murdering others. The overall quality of life becomes seriously undermined and society as a whole deteriorates (Doerflinger, 1989, p. 16-19, Koop, 1989, p. 2-3). Once euthanasia becomes legal, opponents contend, the potential for abuse at the hands of caregivers vastly increases. Closely related to this argument is the argument that those who enjoy the exercise of power over others might become intoxicated with it and actually come to enjoy killing. One step down the path toward euthanasia simply makes it that much easier in the future to take further steps. This argument is al so referred to as the wedge theory or the slippery slope. One of the most outspoken opponents of euthanasia, University of Michigan professor of law Yale Kamisar, has articulated a three pronged attack that utilizes the wedge theory, the risk of abuse, and the risk of mistake. The proponents of the wedge theory argue that Once society accepts that life can be terminated because of its diminished quality, there is no rational way to limit euthanasia and prevent its abuse. According to this theory, voluntary euthanasia is just the thin edge of a wedge that, once in place, will be driven deeply into our society. Kamisar concludes that legalized voluntary euthanasia inevitably would lead to legalized involuntary euthanasia because it is impossible to draw a rational distinction between those who seek to die because they are a burden to themselves and those whom society seeks to kill because they are a burden to others.(2) (Wolhandler, p. 377) Many who raise the wedge or slippery slope a rgument use the Nazi experience with euthanasia as an empirical example of this process in action. They argue that a public policy of murder inexorably follows from an initial, limited step, namely the adoption of a carefully defined euthanasia program, and that a program designed to get rid of those with lives unworthy of life quickly degenerated into the holocaust (Newman, p. 167). What follows is a description of the Nazi euthanasia program excerpted from Liftons (1986) book: National Socialist euthanasia or mercy death was a program of killing persons with unworthy lives. These persons were not moribund, and their families, with the rarest exceptions, wanted them to live. It was not a good death, as the word denotes, but a systematic program of killing without any mercy whatsoever . . . The program, referred to in the National Socialist bureaucracy as T4, was not based on any law, but was initiated by a secret order traceable to Hitler and his chief physician, Karl Brandt . Ment al hospitals were required to report all chronic schizophrenics, manic-depressives, mental defectives, epileptics, and later, debilitated old persons. A separate division, the Public Transport division for the Sick, took care of the collection and transport of such patients to institutions where they were put to death . Relatives received false death certificates and even letters of condolence . . . It is estimated that during two years of this program, ninety thousand persons went to their deaths. While this description of the Nazi euthanasia program is indeed chilling, it provides within it a devastating attack against using it as justification for the slippery slope argument. Proponents of euthanasia in the United States point out that the Nazi program was not one of euthanasia, but a program of mass murder disguised as euthanasia. Gifford (p. 1570) sums up the response of several authors by stating that The Nazis hid their racist, eugenic agenda behind the term euthanasia, termi nating in secret the lives of undesirables. It must never be forgotten that the Nazi euthanasia program was never euthanasia at all. That the Nazis co-opted the term for their own purposes should not obscure the fact that their motive was, from the very beginning, entirely different from that of todays euthanasia proponents. The current euthanasia movement is anything but covert. The Hemlock Society and other supporters of the right to receive aid in dying have spent millions of dollars to publicize their efforts. In this context, death is presented as a positive alternative to pain and suffering, not a utilitarian tool. Proponents of euthanasia also attempt to refute the slippery slope argument in a variety of other ways. They contend that the current mechanisms used by the courts could easily prevent any slide toward involuntary euthanasia,(3) that the current practice of passive euthanasia proves that the slope isnt all that slippery since we havent witnessed any massive killing programs, and that the example of how forced sterilization in the U.S. has diminished rather than increased, provides a more appropriate example to rely on. Even Callahan (1989), a vocal opponent of active euthanasia, admits that the Nazi experience is not particularly applicable to the U.S. experience and that Lives are not b eing shortened. They are steadily being lengthened, and particularly for those who are the most powerless: sick children and the very old, the mentally and mentally retarded, the disabled and the demented (p. 4). Newman (1991) also attacks the concept of the slippery slope itself. Arguing that just pointing out that one type of action could conceivably lead to another constitutes a very unpersuasive argument and that for the premise to hold true, it must be shown that pressure to allow further steps will be so strong that these steps will actually occur. He also reminds us that such arguments are frequently abused in legal and social policy debate (p. 169). Besides Kamisar, the risk of abuse argument has also been put forth by a host of other authors who variously claim that assisted suicides might result in flagrant murders that may be perpetrated by deliberately forcing or coercing self-destruction and that others may advance personal motives by aiding in suicide (Adams, et. al., p. 2031); that when the entire medical profession is involved in euthanasia, including the poorly trained, the insensitive, the less skilled, there becomes the danger that physicians might not do whatever they can to avoid euthanasia if possible (Newman, p. 177); and that some people who enjoy the exercise of power over others might become addicted to the process (Doerflinger, p. 19). It is this fear of abuse that leads the AMAs Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs to argue that the ban on active euthanasia is a bright line distinction that deters this type of potential abuse. They state: Allowing physicians to perform euthanasia for a limited group of patients who may truly benefit from it will present difficult line-drawing problems for medicine and society. In specific cases it may be hard to distinguish which cases fit the criteria established for euthanasia. For example, if the existence of unbearable pain and suffering was a criterion for euthanasia, the definition of unbea rable pain and suffering could be subject to different interpretations, which might lead to abuse of the process in the case of certain practitioners. (CEJA, p. 2232). Proponents of euthanasia argue that the risk of abuse, while certainly present, is not really much of a threat. This is true first, because laws against homicide are severe enough to provide a strong deterrent (Newman, p. 178); second, because a clear set of guidelines prescribing when active euthanasia is allowed will prevent confusion (Adams, et. al., Gifford); third, because we already risk the practice of abuse by allowing passive euthanasia, and such abuse has not occurred (Newman, p. 178); and finally, that the current state of illegality promotes an absence of discussion and actually encourages the practice of clandestine euthanasia (Newman, p. 177). As Gifford (p. 1572) succinctly puts it, what slope could be more slippery than one with no guardrails whatsoever? Additionally, the balancing tests already in place by the legal system should serve to eliminate this problem. Adams, et. al., (p. 2034) explain: For example, some opponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that pe rmitting some assisted suicides may lead to the killing of patients who want to live. This slippery slope argument expresses a utilitarian rationale for prohibiting suicide assistance. Others argue that suicide and the assistance of suicide is intrinsically evil, and that sanctioning them will damage the fabric of social morality. These and other utilitarian and moral considerations are encompassed within the states interest in preserving the sanctity of all life and affect its weight in the balance against the patients interest in self-determination. Opponents of euthanasia contend that there is no guarantee that euthanasia will be strictly voluntary. The potential for sub Arguments For and Against Euthanasia Arguments For and Against Euthanasia Euthanasia: Whose decision is it I. Introduction In a 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, an article titled Its Over Debbie describes how an anonymous doctor administers a fatal dose of morphine to a woman dying of ovarian cancer (Anonymous, 1988). In a 1989 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, ten doctors associated with the nations leading hospitals and medical schools declare their belief that it is not immoral for a physician to assist in the rational suicide of a terminally ill person (Wanzer, et. al., 1989). In 1991, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed account written by Dr. Timothy Quill which discussed his decision to help a patient suffering from leukemia commit suicide (Quill, 1991). In 1990, Dr. Jack Kervorkian uses his suicide machine to help a woman suffering from Alzheimers disease, one Janet Adkins, end her life in the back of a Volkswagen bus (Risen, 1990). Janet was the first of twenty patients who have been aided by Kervorkian in the past three years. He rem ains committed to his practice. In 1991 the Hemlock Society publishes a how-to manual on committing suicide. Entitled Final Exit, it zooms to the top of the national best seller lists and stays there for several weeks (Altman, 1991). Each of these events has served to provoke ever widening media coverage of the issues surrounding euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and a national debate has arisen around these practices. This debate is not merely limited to attorneys and physicians. Suddenly, these issues and this debate are now a part of life in mainstream America, and many Americans face dilemmas that did not exist in simpler times; dilemmas that many would rather not have to face. II. Review of the Literature a. Euthanasia: The Nature of the Debate It is this sudden change in the way Americans are dealing with death, the nature and scope of the debate about dying, which prompts this analysis of the issues surrounding euthanasia. This debate is largely a debate about what is ethical. Questions the debate attempts to answer include: Is it right to commit suicide? Is it ethical for someone else to help? Is it right to put others to death at their own request or at the request of family members? These questions are important because they help to define our society and our culture. The way people deal with and respond to issues of life, ritual, and death serves to shape the nature of our society. This is why society must attempt to decide what is right; what is ethical conduct for the various actors in our communities when we face death. There are several reasons why this debate has surfaced in the 1980s. Death is nothing new, it has existed for thousands of years. Each culture has developed its own rituals and mechanisms for dealin g with death. These mechanisms serve to provide solace, a sense of continuity, and allow the culture to continue even as the members of the community cannot. However, our own culture has experienced many shattering changes that have altered the nature of dying. Suddenly we are forced to rethink the issue of death and we must decide what types of behavior are ethical when someone is dying. Before we can examine the debate about the ethics of dying, we must examine why the debate exists. Perhaps the main reason that death has changed in western culture has to do with advances in medicine and technology. Many of the diseases that have historically killed people are now no longer a threat to most individuals. Medicine has made a variety of advances in the treatment of diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, polio, influenza, and measles. People now rarely die of such traditional causes. Life expectancy has risen to almost 75 years in the United States. The quality o f life has also changed fundamentally during the past 100 years. Not only does almost everyone in the United States have enough to eat, but people eat higher on the food chain. There is a great deal more meat and animal fat in modern diets. Just these differences alone have changed death significantly. People now develop heart disease, adult onset diabetes, cancers, and AIDS. These types of diseases are more the result of lifestyle than bacteria. With these new diseases, suffering is often more prolonged and treatment is frequently quite painful. Also, as people are living longer, the diseases of the aged have become increasingly prevalent. Many more people now suffer from problems like senile dementia and Alzheimers disease. These diseases ruin the mind while preserving the body, allowing life to continue long after any quality that the life might have is gone. If what we die of has changed, perhaps the way that we die has changed even more. Throughout history, death has been a family affair. People usually died in the home after a short bout with an illness or as the result of an accident. Today, increasingly, death occurs in an institutional setting such as a convalescent home or a hospital, after a variety of technologies are applied in an attempt to prolong the life of the sick person. Often these technologies can be quite effective. People can now live for months and even years attached to a variety of tubes and technol ogies. About 75% of all deaths in 1987 occurred in hospitals and long term care facilities, up from 50% in 1950 . . . The Office of Technology Assessment Task Force estimated in 1988 that 3775 to 6575 persons were dependent on mechanical ventilation and 1,404,500 persons were receiving artificial nutritional support. This growing capability to forestall death has contributed to the increased attention to medical decisions near the end of life. (CEJA, 1992, p. 2229) People realize that the chances of facing the institutionalization of death increase daily, and they feel a profound lack of control. Surveys have consistently indicated that a large majority of people in the United States would like to be allowed to end their lives before incurable and painful diseases finally kill them (CEJA, p. 2229). Because of the changes that have impacted death, with regard to both how and where we die, the debate about how we should be allowed to die has been renewed. This paper will examine the s everal facets of this debate. It will define the terms that are relevant to the debate, examine the legal state of euthanasia today, discuss the ethics of euthanasia by examining arguments made by proponents and opponents of euthanasia, and by applying several Normative Ethical Theories to the issue. Finally, it will explore the power implications that infuse the debate on euthanasia and present arguments in favor of moving toward a care based ethic of dying and away from the current rights based ethic. b. Definitions If we are to effectively understand the debate about the right to die in the United States, it is imperative that a few basic terms be understood. The first and most important term is euthanasia. Originating from the Greek terms eu (happy or good) and thanatos (death), euthanasia means literally happy death or good death. The American Medical Associations Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs defines the term as follows: Euthanasia is commonly defined as the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way for reasons of mercy. In this report, the term euthanasia will signify the medical administration of a lethal agent to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patients intolerable and incurable suffering. (p. 2230) Other sources have defined euthanasia variously: The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions of diseases. (Wolhandler, 1984, p. 363), . . . to refuse un wanted medical treatment or to have ongoing care withdrawn even though the patient will die if treatment is terminated. (Adams, et. al., 1992, p. 2021). Euthanasia is a general term that can actually mean a variety of different things depending upon the context in which it is used. For this reason, a number of supporting terms has become the convention when discussing euthanasia. These terms help to narrow the subject matter and distinguish between different types of euthanasia. The important terms that help to subdivide and classify euthanasia by type are voluntary/involuntary and active/passive. Voluntary euthanasia is a death performed by another with the consent of the person being killed. This consent may be in writing as in the case of a living will or advance directive. Involuntary euthanasia is a death performed by another without the consent of the person being killed. The AMAs Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs makes three distinctions concerning consent and euthanasia: Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia that is provided to a competent person on his or her informed request. Non-voluntary euthanasia is the provision of euthanasia to an incompetent person according to a surrogates decision. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia performed without a c ompetent persons consent.(p. 2230) Wolhandler compares the terms in a different context.Those who condemn euthanasia of both kinds would call the involuntary form murder and the voluntary form a compounded crime of murder and suicide if administered by the physician, and suicide alone if administered by the patient himself. As far as voluntary euthanasia goes, it is impossible to separate it from suicide as a moral category; it is, indeed, a form of suicide. Voluntary euthanasia may involve participation of second parties. (p. 366) The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not nearly as clear as the previous distinction. Although many authors claim that the difference between the two types cannot be identified or is irrelevant at best, much of the debate on the subject is over this distinction and most of the current legal issues turn on this distinction. While this paper will contend that the difference between the two should not be recognized, it is both useful and important to know where the line is drawn. The AMA, which is strongly opposed to active euthanasia, has seen fit to endorse passive euthanasia in appropriate situations. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs makes the distinction as follows: The physician is obligated only to offer sound medical treatment and to refrain from providing treatments that are detrimental, on balance, to the patients well being. When a physician withholds or withdraws a treatment on the request of a patient, he or she has fulfilled the obligation to offer sound treatment to the patient. The obligation to offer treatment does not include an obligation to impose treatment on an unwilling patient. In addition, the physician is not providing a harmful treatment. Withdrawing or withholding is not a treatment, but the foregoing of a treatment. (p. 2231) According to Wolhandler, (p. 367) it is t he nature of the acts performed by the second party that distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia. The courts have held that acts of omission (removal of respiratory assistance, hydration, and feeding tubes) are allowable behavior. Although unplugging a respirator and switching off a dialysis machine are arguably acts of commission, an increasing number of judges and commentators have accepted these acts as permissible passive euthanasia in both voluntary and involuntary settings. Gifford (1993) describes the difference between the two types of euthanasia this way: Passive euthanasia involves allowing a patient to die by removing her from artificial life support systems such as respirators and feeding tubes or simply discontinuing medical treatments necessary to sustain life. Active euthanasia, by contrast, involves positive steps to end the life of a patient, typically by lethal injectiond (p. 1546) The right to passive euthanasia has also been termed the right to die by some authors (Adams, et. al., p. 2021-22). With an understanding of the different types of euthanasia, we can now define some other key terms. It is important to understand how physician assisted suicide differs from euthanasia, and it is also necessary to define the terms advance directive and competence since they are crucial in determining the difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The term physician assisted suicide is somewhat self-explanatory. It occurs when a physician provides aid to a patient so they can commit suicide. However, it is also necessary to see the difference between this type of action and euthanasia. The AMAs Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs states that Euthanasia and assisted suicide differ in the degree of physician participation. Euthanasia entails a physician performing the immediate life ending action (e.g., administering a lethal injection). Assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patients death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (e.g., the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). (p. 2231) It is important to realize that the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide lies in the behavior of the physician. This difference in behavior has recently become a major legal battleground that will be explored in the following pages. The advance directive has recently become an important new device to aid the terminally ill. Many states have legalized the advance directive, partly in an attempt to avoid dealing with problems associated with active euthanasia, and partly to help ease the burdens on the dying and their families. Singer (1992) provides a good definition of advance directive and explains how it is used. An advance directive is a written document completed by a competent person that aims to guide medical treatment after the person becomes incompetent. There are two types: instruction directives, which focus on the types of life-sustaining treatment that the person would want under various clinical situations, and proxy directives, which focus on who the person would want to make health care decisions if the person were unable to do so. (p. 22) The advance directive is useful because it can theoretically eliminate the need for involuntary euthanasia. It ensures that a voluntary decision is made in advance, even if the individual could not make such a situation at a later date. If everyone made use of the advance directive, there would be no need to debate policy decisions that must be made in the case of an incompetent person on life support. Because advance directives have neither been accepted nor widely used by the general public, many of the problems that could potentially be solved remain. This situation caused right to die groups in both California and Washington to propose ballot initiatives that would legalize active euthanasia (Gifford, p. 1550-51). Although active euthanasia is not legal in any United States jurisdiction, passive euthanasia is generally allowed at the request of a competent individual. Because of this it is critical to understand what constitutes competence. Courts have defined legal competence as the mental ability to make a rational decision, which includes the ability to perceive, appreciate all the relevant facts, and to reach a rational judgement upon such facts. In the euthanasia context, legal competence is the incurable s ability to understand that in requesting active euthanasia he is choosing death over life. Only clear and convincing evidence should suffice for a finding of an incurables competence. (Wolhandler, p. 366-67) c. The Legal State of Euthanasia With a knowledge of the meaningful terms that will be involved, it is important to discuss the legal state of euthanasia in the United States today. As technology has placed more and more people on life sustaining devices in this country, the courts have had to deal with several cases that pertain to euthanasia in a variety of ways. This section of the paper is designed to review those cases briefly and to assess how the rulings in those cases have set the policy for the practice of euthanasia today. The courts first dealt with euthanasia in the Quinlan case in 1976. Karen Ann Quinlan lapsed into a coma after mixing a variety of pills and alcohol at a party. After it became apparent that she would not be revived, her parents went to court to have her respirator removed. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that her parents had the right to have the respirator removed and that Karen be allowed to die. Ironically, because her parents did not request removal of feeding and hydration tubes , she survived nine more years curled in a fetal position in a New Jersey rest home (Wolhandler, p. 366). In this case, the New Jersey court effectively sanctioned nonvoluntary passive euthanasia. The next prominent case was decided by the New York Supreme Court in Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz. Here the court found that a competent patient had the right to refuse medical treatment, allowing for a patient to decide in cases of voluntary passive euthanasia (Gifford, p. 1575-76). Later, in Satz v. Perlmutter, a Florida District Court of Appeals came to essentially the same conclusion (Wolhandler, p. 372-73). In Severns v. Wilmington Medical Center, the Delaware Supreme Court gave the husband of a comatose woman the right of guardianship and the authority to remove her respirator or withhold other treatment as he saw fit. In this case the court relied on previous decisions made in Quinlan, Saikewicz, and Satz for its finding (Wolhandler, p. 373). In Thor v. Su perior Court (California), the court granted the request to withhold treatment from a severely depressed quadriplegic only after a psychiatric evaluation determined that the request was based on poor quality of life and not just on severe depression (Pugliese, 1993, p. 1326). The courts have not restricted the right of passive euthanasia to just the terminally ill. Elizabeth Bouvia was a relatively young woman who suffered from severe cerebral palsy and attempted to starve herself to death in a California hospital by requesting the removal of a nasogastric feeding tube. She was denied this request because the hospital feared it would be party to suicide. The California court of appeals ordered the physicians to remove the tube and argued that she had the right to enlist the assistance of others in ending her life (Sprung, 1990, p. 2213). The courts have also found that doctors and hospitals must at least obtain consent from third parties that would have a significant interest in the patients outcome if the patient is incompetent. In the case of Helga Wanglie, a Minnesota court denied a hospital administrator permission to disconnect her respirator against the wishes of her husband (Gifford, p. 1571). In sum, these cases indicate an emerging consensus that courts will generally allow treatment to be withheld from patients who are terminally ill if it is in the best interests of the patient and at the request of patients or family members. It is this emerging consensus that made the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in the Cruzan case so interesting. In the only euthanasia case heard to date by the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices, in a 5-4 decision, allowed to stand the decision made by the Missouri Court of Appeals not to disconnect the life support apparatus from Nancy Cruzan (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 1990). Although the court did find that a right to refuse treatment could be found in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and did not prohibit the courts from looking in other areas for this right (Adams, et. al., p. 2025), it also upheld the right of the State of Missouri to require . . . clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Cruzan would have desired withdrawal of these treatments. (Newman, 1991, p. 175). In the realm of physician assisted suicide, only two major cases have been decided. In the case against Dr. Timothy Quill that arose because of the publication of his article in the New England Journal of Medicine, the grand jury for the state of New York refused to return an indictment (Bender, 1992, p. 524). In the more publicized case of Dr. Jack Kervorkian, the courts have not yet decided on the constitutionality of the Michigan law that bans physician-assisted suicide. Kervorkian is currently free on bond and continues to aid other patients who wish to commit suicide (Pugliese, p. 1300-05).(1) A brief assessment of the cases described above indicates that the courts have essentially legalized voluntary passive euthanasia, finding justification to refuse or have medical treatment withheld in the constitutional right to privacy, the common law right of self determination, or the more general concept of autonomy (Gifford, p. 1575-78). With regard to involuntary passive euthanasia, the courts are generally supportive of the practice, but they have the right to insist on a more stringent standard of evidence before approving such procedures. The courts have generally employed a balancing test that weighs the patients right to privacy and self-determination against the interest of the state in preserving life. The interests of potential third parties that might desire that the patient continue to live, and the ethical image of the medical profession (Adams, et. al., p. 2022). In cases of assisted suicide, some states have laws against the practice, the AMA forbids it, most juries are refusing to find the actors guilty, and the courts have yet to decide the question. Both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia remain illegal. d. The Debate About Euthanasia The movement to legalize active euthanasia has existed for quite some time. Initially popularized in Britain during the 19th century, it gained some adherents in the United States during the 1920s. It was the Nazi program of active euthanasia in the 1930s and 4os that cast a pall of disrepute over the practice that remains today. The revival of this movement today can largely be attributed to the onset of the issues discussed at the beginning of this paper, and to the efforts of the Hemlock Society, a group of individuals that actively promotes the right to dignified death. The Hemlock Society recently promoted ballot initiatives in both Washington and California that would have legalized active euthanasia in those states (Gifford, 1993). This revival of the right to die movement has led to hotly contested debate about the practices of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This paper will attempt to encapsulate this debate by presenting the arguments made by both opponents and supporters of these procedures. Since arguments made by both sides are used in cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the generic term euthanasia is used for simplicity to suggest the concept of aided death unless otherwise indicated. Those opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide present a variety of arguments in support of a ban. e. The Case Against Euthanasia Euthanasia destroys societal respect for life. By becoming commonplace and used in medical practice along with more traditional methods of healing, society becomes desensitized toward death to the point where life is no longer valuable. This attitude serves to degrade humanity and leads to a variety of social ills. In a society that devalues life, people have no compunctions about committing violent crimes and murdering others. The overall quality of life becomes seriously undermined and society as a whole deteriorates (Doerflinger, 1989, p. 16-19, Koop, 1989, p. 2-3). Once euthanasia becomes legal, opponents contend, the potential for abuse at the hands of caregivers vastly increases. Closely related to this argument is the argument that those who enjoy the exercise of power over others might become intoxicated with it and actually come to enjoy killing. One step down the path toward euthanasia simply makes it that much easier in the future to take further steps. This argument is al so referred to as the wedge theory or the slippery slope. One of the most outspoken opponents of euthanasia, University of Michigan professor of law Yale Kamisar, has articulated a three pronged attack that utilizes the wedge theory, the risk of abuse, and the risk of mistake. The proponents of the wedge theory argue that Once society accepts that life can be terminated because of its diminished quality, there is no rational way to limit euthanasia and prevent its abuse. According to this theory, voluntary euthanasia is just the thin edge of a wedge that, once in place, will be driven deeply into our society. Kamisar concludes that legalized voluntary euthanasia inevitably would lead to legalized involuntary euthanasia because it is impossible to draw a rational distinction between those who seek to die because they are a burden to themselves and those whom society seeks to kill because they are a burden to others.(2) (Wolhandler, p. 377) Many who raise the wedge or slippery slope a rgument use the Nazi experience with euthanasia as an empirical example of this process in action. They argue that a public policy of murder inexorably follows from an initial, limited step, namely the adoption of a carefully defined euthanasia program, and that a program designed to get rid of those with lives unworthy of life quickly degenerated into the holocaust (Newman, p. 167). What follows is a description of the Nazi euthanasia program excerpted from Liftons (1986) book: National Socialist euthanasia or mercy death was a program of killing persons with unworthy lives. These persons were not moribund, and their families, with the rarest exceptions, wanted them to live. It was not a good death, as the word denotes, but a systematic program of killing without any mercy whatsoever . . . The program, referred to in the National Socialist bureaucracy as T4, was not based on any law, but was initiated by a secret order traceable to Hitler and his chief physician, Karl Brandt . Ment al hospitals were required to report all chronic schizophrenics, manic-depressives, mental defectives, epileptics, and later, debilitated old persons. A separate division, the Public Transport division for the Sick, took care of the collection and transport of such patients to institutions where they were put to death . Relatives received false death certificates and even letters of condolence . . . It is estimated that during two years of this program, ninety thousand persons went to their deaths. While this description of the Nazi euthanasia program is indeed chilling, it provides within it a devastating attack against using it as justification for the slippery slope argument. Proponents of euthanasia in the United States point out that the Nazi program was not one of euthanasia, but a program of mass murder disguised as euthanasia. Gifford (p. 1570) sums up the response of several authors by stating that The Nazis hid their racist, eugenic agenda behind the term euthanasia, termi nating in secret the lives of undesirables. It must never be forgotten that the Nazi euthanasia program was never euthanasia at all. That the Nazis co-opted the term for their own purposes should not obscure the fact that their motive was, from the very beginning, entirely different from that of todays euthanasia proponents. The current euthanasia movement is anything but covert. The Hemlock Society and other supporters of the right to receive aid in dying have spent millions of dollars to publicize their efforts. In this context, death is presented as a positive alternative to pain and suffering, not a utilitarian tool. Proponents of euthanasia also attempt to refute the slippery slope argument in a variety of other ways. They contend that the current mechanisms used by the courts could easily prevent any slide toward involuntary euthanasia,(3) that the current practice of passive euthanasia proves that the slope isnt all that slippery since we havent witnessed any massive killing programs, and that the example of how forced sterilization in the U.S. has diminished rather than increased, provides a more appropriate example to rely on. Even Callahan (1989), a vocal opponent of active euthanasia, admits that the Nazi experience is not particularly applicable to the U.S. experience and that Lives are not b eing shortened. They are steadily being lengthened, and particularly for those who are the most powerless: sick children and the very old, the mentally and mentally retarded, the disabled and the demented (p. 4). Newman (1991) also attacks the concept of the slippery slope itself. Arguing that just pointing out that one type of action could conceivably lead to another constitutes a very unpersuasive argument and that for the premise to hold true, it must be shown that pressure to allow further steps will be so strong that these steps will actually occur. He also reminds us that such arguments are frequently abused in legal and social policy debate (p. 169). Besides Kamisar, the risk of abuse argument has also been put forth by a host of other authors who variously claim that assisted suicides might result in flagrant murders that may be perpetrated by deliberately forcing or coercing self-destruction and that others may advance personal motives by aiding in suicide (Adams, et. al., p. 2031); that when the entire medical profession is involved in euthanasia, including the poorly trained, the insensitive, the less skilled, there becomes the danger that physicians might not do whatever they can to avoid euthanasia if possible (Newman, p. 177); and that some people who enjoy the exercise of power over others might become addicted to the process (Doerflinger, p. 19). It is this fear of abuse that leads the AMAs Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs to argue that the ban on active euthanasia is a bright line distinction that deters this type of potential abuse. They state: Allowing physicians to perform euthanasia for a limited group of patients who may truly benefit from it will present difficult line-drawing problems for medicine and society. In specific cases it may be hard to distinguish which cases fit the criteria established for euthanasia. For example, if the existence of unbearable pain and suffering was a criterion for euthanasia, the definition of unbea rable pain and suffering could be subject to different interpretations, which might lead to abuse of the process in the case of certain practitioners. (CEJA, p. 2232). Proponents of euthanasia argue that the risk of abuse, while certainly present, is not really much of a threat. This is true first, because laws against homicide are severe enough to provide a strong deterrent (Newman, p. 178); second, because a clear set of guidelines prescribing when active euthanasia is allowed will prevent confusion (Adams, et. al., Gifford); third, because we already risk the practice of abuse by allowing passive euthanasia, and such abuse has not occurred (Newman, p. 178); and finally, that the current state of illegality promotes an absence of discussion and actually encourages the practice of clandestine euthanasia (Newman, p. 177). As Gifford (p. 1572) succinctly puts it, what slope could be more slippery than one with no guardrails whatsoever? Additionally, the balancing tests already in place by the legal system should serve to eliminate this problem. Adams, et. al., (p. 2034) explain: For example, some opponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that pe rmitting some assisted suicides may lead to the killing of patients who want to live. This slippery slope argument expresses a utilitarian rationale for prohibiting suicide assistance. Others argue that suicide and the assistance of suicide is intrinsically evil, and that sanctioning them will damage the fabric of social morality. These and other utilitarian and moral considerations are encompassed within the states interest in preserving the sanctity of all life and affect its weight in the balance against the patients interest in self-determination. Opponents of euthanasia contend that there is no guarantee that euthanasia will be strictly voluntary. The potential for sub

Comparing the American Dream in Millers Death of a Salesman and Hansbe

Comparing the Destructive American Dream in Miller's Death of a Salesman and Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun America is a land of dreamers. From the time of the Spanish conquistadors coming in search of gold and everlasting youth, there has been a mystique about the land to which Amerigo Vespucci gave his name. To the Puritans who settled its northeast, it was to be the site of their â€Å"city upon a hill† (Winthrop 2). They gave their home the name New England, to signify their hope for a new beginning. Generations of immigrants followed, each a dreamer bringing his own hopes and aspirations to the green shores. The quest was given a name – the American Dream; and through the ages, it has been as much a symbol of America as the lady in the harbor, a promise of America’s riches for all who dare to dream and strive to fulfill their ambitions. Dreamers apotheosized fellow dreamers like Rockefeller and Carnegie, holding them to be the paradigm from which all could follow. But behind the meretricious dream lies the cold reality. A country built upon survival of the fittest has no sympathy for those who serve as the steppingstones for othe rs’ success. For every person who reaches the zenith, there are countless others trapped in the valleys of despair by their heedless dash to reach the top. Playwrights Arthur Miller and Lorraine Hansberry memorialize the failures in their works Death of a Salesman and A Raisin in the Sun. Their central dreamers, Miller’s Willy Loman and Hansberry’s Walter Lee Younger, like children at a candy shop window, are seduced by that success which can be seen so clearly, yet is so unreachable. Ardent followers of the hype of America, they reveal that, far from being a positive motivator, the Ame... ...n. Ed. Harold Bloom. Modern Critical Interpretations. New York: Chelsea, 1988. 47-58. Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. New York: Penguin, 1977. Nemiroff, Robert. Introduction. A Raisin in the Sun. By Lorraine Hansberry. New York: Vintage, 1988. 5-14. Turner, Darwin T. "Visions of Love and Manliness in a Blackening World: Dramas of Black Life Since 1953." Black Scholar 25.2 (1995): 2-13. EBSCO. Wake Co. Public Lib. 5 Jan. 2001 <http://www.ebscohost.com>. Wilson, Robert N. â€Å"The Salesman and Society.† The Writer as Social Seer. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1979. 57-71. Rpt. in Willy Loman. Ed. Harold Bloom. Major Literary Characters. New York: Chelsea, 1991. 79-89. Winthrop, John. â€Å"A Model of Christian Charity.† American History Online. 28 Mar. 2001. <http://longman.awl.com/history/primarysource_2_4.htm>.

Mental and Social Disorder Essay -- Diseases/Disorders

One in every seventeen people in America suffers from a mental disorder. These disorders inhibit the afflicted person from functioning properly and coping normally with daily life. Many afflicted with a psychological disorder do not exhibit obvious symptoms, as medical advancements have made it possible for these disorders to be suppressed or even nonexistent. Today, however, harsh stigmas exist that unfairly categorize those with a mental illness as violent, unfriendly, and abnormal. The media and federal government are culprits in fabricating the unrealistic depictions of mental disability that define the portrayal of those who are mentally or psychologically disadvantaged. The media is and has been one of the strongest outlets of perpetuating negative mental illness stereotypes. Since the invention of the television and its spread to every American household by the 1960s, television shows have manufactured an image of the mentally disabled as dangerous and unpredictable . The shows depict the mentally ill as very violent; â€Å"One in four mentally ill characters kill someone, and half are portrayed as hurting others .† The ways in which mentally disabled are filmed within a show also differs from the ways that non-disabled characters are shot. Studies show that they are usually filmed â€Å"alone with close-up or extreme shots, reinforcing their isolation and dislocation from the other characters † and from society. In movies, like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the characters who are treated in psychiatric wards are similarly portrayed as crazy and violent, while the mental health field as a whole is negatively stereotyped. Mov ies make the facilities out to be places where electroshock and psychosurgery are commonly practiced medi... ... people with mental illness?." Gale Power Search. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=san47811&tabID=T002&searchId=R3&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm ¤tPosition=3&contentSet=GALE%7CA199865961&&docId=GALE|A199865961&docType=GALE&role=EAIM. "TV dramas give misleading view of mental illness, claims report | Society | The Guardian." Latest US news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian | guardiannews.com | The Guardian. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/22/tv-programmes-mental-illness. Watters, Ethan. "The Americanization of Mental Illness - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10psyche-t.html?pagewanted=all.

Shakespeares character Juliet :: essays research papers

Paragraph I (Juliet) Romeo and Juliet both grew up in haughty, first class households, where they were provided with everything they wanted and needed, not to mention a broad education including proper etiquettes. Juliet is a very courageous and loyal person to Romeo, for she not only stands up to her parents, but to systematic way of life that has existed for hundreds of years (arranged marriages). She’s tells her mother immediately at the ball that she will only meet Paris because she wants her to and not because she is voluntarily interested in him:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I’ll look to like, if looking liking move.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  But no more deep will I endart mine eye   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Than your consent gives strength to make it fly. (1,iii,98-100) Romeo on the other hand shows courage, but not the same kind. He has a loving relationship with his father, and his courage is shown by him perusing his love for Juliet, knowing the consequences of associating with a Capulet. Since men could marry whoever they wanted, I wouldn’t call him courageous. Juliet also qualifies as devoted, after the nurse tells her that she should just go ahead and marry Paris, she says she will kill herself if she is forced to marry Paris. She would rather take her own life than to have a life without Romeo:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ancient damnation! Oh, most wicked fiend!   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Is it more sin to wish me thus forsworn,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Or to dispraise my lord with that same tongue   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Which she hath praised him above compare

Sedentary Lifestyles

Sedentary Lifestyle Monyetta â€Å"Lashalle† Calhoun Advanced Composition July 29, 2012 Professor: Symmetris Gohanna What comes to mind when you hear the word potato? French fries, hash browns, a loaded baked potato from Wendy’s maybe. Or what about the term â€Å"couch potato? † This is the only form of potato that is on my list that is not good. Being a couch potato, or living a sedentary lifestyle, is not a healthy choice. Sedentary lifestyle is the term used to describe a lifestyle with little to no physical activity.The activities of a person living a sedentary lifestyle include reading, sitting, watching television, being on the computer, and playing video games for much of, if not, the entire day. The questions at hand is what are the reasons behind living a sedentary lifestyle, what health issues can come from it, and why this lifestyle is not healthy? The lack of physical activity is believed to be a factor of obesity; this can lead to bigger health issu es such as Type 2 diabetes. This lifestyle has also been associated with accelerated aging process and premature death.With other factors such as advanced technology and pure laziness, the sedentary lifestyle is climbing the charts to becoming the leading cause of death in the U. S. These effects of living a sedentary lifestyle are reasons you should get out and get active. Here is a simple math problem: unhealthy eating + no physical activity= a greater chance of obesity. Obesity is a major factor in developing Type 2 diabetes. Obesity is the medical term used to describe a person who has excessive body fat. It can be caused by unhealthy eating mixed with no physical activity.In some people, it is hereditary and others accumulate the excess body fat by living a sedentary lifestyle. It is not healthy to live such a lifestyle. Some of the blame goes to the person living the lifestyle but one could argue that technological advances also play a part in choosing to be a â€Å"couch pot ato. † Nowadays you have the opportunity to work from home, in front of a computer or laptop. Video game creators try to mask their involvement with exercise games such as Zumba and WiiFit but that does not always work. It is ok to be lazy from time to time and have time to rest but that is only if you are up and out and being active.To prevent obesity and possibly Type 2 diabetes, exercise. The exercise does not have to be strenuous but just enough to get you up and moving. Try walking around the park or neighborhood or be active with your kids. Just by exercising 30 minutes a day for at least 5 days out of the week you can prevent the health issues. Have you ever felt older than you really are? Bones cracking, laziness, and fatigue? Well where do your symptoms come from, excessive labor or hard core working out or are you just sitting down not doing anything while your body slowly deteriorates?People who live a sedentary lifestyle accelerate their aging process by living thi s lifestyle which can cause premature death. Being inactive influences and speeds up the aging process. It is said that individuals who are physically active during their leisure time appear to be biologically younger than those who live a sedentary lifestyle. By being inactive, muscle tissues are lost and muscle atrophy, which is the shrinking and weakening of the muscles, sends the body spiraling downwards. This includes all of the body’s systems and one becomes more prone to disease and physical injury.The function of the body is something like a dependency system. Physical strength and fitness is correlated with a strong immune system function, which is the bodies armor and defense system that protects us from disease and illness. It is sort of like parent and child. Once a baby is born, it cannot fend for itself so it depends on its parent to provide what it needs and protect it from any foul harm or danger. If the parent does not do what he or she is suppose to do for t he baby and not protect it, the baby will ultimately be taken from the parent whether by law or nature.It is the same thing with a person and their body. If the body is not taken care of, its chances of becoming ill is greater than the body of a person who is physically active. A reduction in strength and general weakness weakens the efficiency of the immune system increasing the risk of health issues accelerated aging process. No one wants to look or feel older than they really are. Do not just sit around and wait for somebody to do it for you. No one can do it but you. The first law of self-preservation is self-motivation.Think about it like this: the illness and health issues are not going to keep putting off hoping you will stop living a sedentary lifestyle, so why should you put off doing something active. Put the video gaming, television, and computer time to a minimum and use that time to get healthy, get in shape, and fight off those diseases. Physical activity is said to ma ke you feel young and also look the part. So why not get that couch potato up and start cooking and aiming towards living a healthy long life versus a unhealthy and sick life. Get up, get out, and get active!

Chemistry Lab Report Water Hydration Introduction

Chemistry Lab Report Water Hydration Introduction: A hydrated crystal or hydrated occurs when water becomes tightly attracted to a metal salt base on it’s polarity. The water molecules maintain integrity as molecules, however they are considered to be part of the formula of the hydrate. When the hydrate metal salt crystal is heated, the attractions to the water are broken by the heat energy and the water escape from the crystal. After heating the salt crystal is called as anhydrous, which means without water. Many of the salt contain transition metals such as cobalt that is colorful (purple).Often the color of transition metal like cobalt’s color will change as a function of how many waters it is attracted to. Compounds containing water (H2O) of hydrated are written with water separate by a dot (. ). This (. ) means for hydrated metal salt there are how many number of moles of water bound to each mole of that metal salt. Research Question: The aim of this experiment is to calculate the number of moles of water bounded to each mole of cobalt chloride ( CoCl2. H2O). This cobalt chloride hydrated may be monohydrate with 1 mole of water attracted to cobalt chloride.It may be dihydrate, trihydrate, tetrahydrate or pentahydrate; your task is to determine which one you are given. Hypothesis: If cobalt chloride were heated until there is no further lose in weight, 6 moles of water would be lost from 1 mole of salt. Therefore it is predicted that there are 6 moles of water in this reaction. Materials (Apparatus): 1. 3 gram of cobalt chloride 2. Evaporating dish 3. Tongs to hold the evaporating dish 4. Ring stand 5. Iron ring 6. Clamp 7. Bunsen burner 8. Matches 9. 40. 20 g size of the crucible 10. Digital balance/ g 0. 01 11.Clay triangle 12. Gloss rod Procedure: 1. Place an empty crucible on digital balance by uncertainty of 0. 01g 2. Measure the size of the crucible without salt 3. Add 3 gram of cobalt chloride to the crucible 4. Measure the total size o f crucible containing cobalt chloride 5. Take the crucible containing salt, place it on the Bunsen burner by tongs. Place crucible on a clay triangle and iron ring to protect the crucible from falling. 6. Gently heat the crucible by Bunsen burner 7. Use a gloss rod to give a movement to cobalt chloride to crystalized. 8.Record time for salt crystallization 9. Stop heating when cobalt chloride crystalized 10. Wait for few second for crucible to cool down 11. Place and Measure the anhydrous crucible by digital balance 12. Using calculation find the number of moles in this reaction. CoCl2 . nH2O CoCl2 + nH2 Data Collection and Processing: Process| Observation during the experiment | Changes in color | As we started heating the crucible containing CoCl2. H2O , the color of the CoCl2 started to change from violet purple to dark purple and the blue in 6 minutes and it is because of water evaporation. Appearance of the salt during heating | After 3 to 5 minutes, as water was evaporating an d reaching its melting and boiling point, salt began to bubble. At the beginning of heating it was powdery solid then it changed to liquid and at last solid again. Volume of salt decreases because of lost of molecules. We waited for 10 minutes until it cooled down. | Calculations: Raw data collected Mass| Grams | Uncertainty /g  ±0. 01| Crucible| 42. 20 g| 0. 02 %| Pure H2O | 1. 36 g| 0. 73 %| Pure CoCl2| 1. 66 g | 0. 60 %| | | Total uncertainty | | | 0. 08 %|Find the masses: Crucible + CoCl2. H2O = 45. 23 g Anhydrous = 43. 86 g Mass of pure H2O = 45. 23 – 43. 28 = 1. 36 g Mass of pure CoCl2 = 3. 02 – 1. 36 = 1. 66 g Find the uncertainty: CoCl2 = 1. 66 = 0. 01 = 0. 60 % 100 x H2O = 1. 36 = 0. 01 = 0. 73 % 100 x Crucible = 42. 20 = 0. 01 = 0. 02 % 100 x Total uncertainty: 0. 02 % + 0. 60 % + 0. 73 % = 1. 3 % 100 = 1. 3 = 0. 08 % 6 x Find the percentage of water: % Water = weight of water in sample * 100 Original weight of sample % 45. 03 = 1. 36 *100 3. 02 Find the nu mber of moles: CoCl2 . H2O CoCl2 H2O 1. 661. 36 1. 66 * 18 n = 1. 36 * 130 29. 88 n = 176. 8 g 130 18 n n = 176. 8 / 29. 88 n = 6 moles CoCl2 . 6H2O CoCl2 +6H2O Conclusion: From this experiment, I investigated that my hypothesis is fairly accurate as I predicted. Therefore it is concluded that through empirical formula, the degree of hydration is hydrated CoCl2 was determined to a relative degree of accuracy. It is determined to be approximately 6 moles of water bonded with 1 mole of CoCl2 and giving: CoCl2 . 6H2O. Evaluation:Our experiment was fairly close as the ratio was 1:5. 9. However, the ratio achieved through this experiment was, while approximately accurate to the accepted literature value of 1: 6, not so precise tat this ratio could be assumed to anything greater or lesser than 1 significant figure. This anomaly can be explained by acknowledging some errors within the experimental process. While the determined degree of hydration was not perfect, and indeed to find the cur rent rather elaborate ratio a degree of rounding was still required, it was still reasonably accurate. Some errors can be: 1.Over heating of the hydrated cobalt chloride can result in burning the anhydrous compound of cobalt chloride, therefore contaminating it with oxygen and alerting the mass present in the crucible. This could lead to varying degrees of inaccuracy. 2. Base on the fact that cobalt chloride is hydrophilic means; it will absorb moisture from atmosphere. Therefore, the experiment should be conducted in a dry, well-aired lab to avoid as little absorption as possible. 3. In contrast to burning the anhydrous compound, the heating could have failed to completely remove all the water or revise it; it may over heated that also effect on the accuracy.Improvements: There are several ways to improve this experiment. The key improvement to this experiment would probably be to decrease the intensity with which flame is applied to the crucible. This reduces the possibility to re duce overheating, and increase the period of time spent dehydrating the sample to ensure a slower, more through and less intense dehydration. Another improvement can be using a lab, which has the suitable location for this experiment. At last, have a expert partner or teacher to tell u, when stop heating the crucible can improve the accuracy of constant mass to achieve.