Research------ Euthanasia

Definitions:

Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)
Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."
Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.

What Euthanasia is NOT: There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labeled "passive euthanasia" are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking. These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out.

http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html

Research -------- AMD

AMD----- Advanced Medical Directive

An Advance Medical Directive (AMD) is a legal document that you sign in advance to inform the doctor treating you (in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious) that you do not want any extraordinary life-sustaining treatment 1 to be used to prolong your life.Making an AMD is a voluntary decision. It is entirely up to you whether you wish to make one. In fact, it is a criminal offence for any person to force you to make one against your will.New advances in medical knowledge and technology create new choices for both patients and health care providers. Some of these choices raise new ethical and legal issues.One issue is that modern medical technology can technically prolong life in the final stages of a terminal illness2. However, it cannot stop the dying process. In such situations, further medical intervention would be medically ineffective, and a decision has to be made whether to withdraw such futile medical intervention. Some terminally ill persons who are unable to express their wishes at that time, may want to be spared further suffering and be allowed to die naturally, in peace and with dignity.The law in Singapore allows Singaporeans who wish to make an advance medical directive to do so. The AMD Act was passed in Parliament in May 1996.

1 "Extraordinary life-sustaining treatment" is any medical treatment which serves only to prolong the process of dying for terminally ill patients but does not cure the illness. An example is the respirator that is connected to a patient to assist him/her to breathe. It serves only to artificially prolong the life of a terminally ill patient.
2 "Terminal illness" is defined in the Act as an incurable condition caused by injury or disease from which there is no reasonable prospect of a temporary or permanent recovery. For such a condition, death is imminent even if extraordinary life-sustaining measures were used. These measures would only serve to postpone the moment of death for the patient.

http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/legislations.aspx?id=7120

"The death penalty is not a deterrent. It is murder." Do you agree?

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, “deterrent” refers to a thing that makes somebody less likely to do something and “murder” refers to the crime of killing somebody deliberately.

I disagree with the statement.

Throughout all these years, death penalty has been associated with cruel methods which exist in the past like stoning, crucifixion and decapitation and in the modern like hanging, electric chair and gas chamber. Just by hearing these methods, not mentioning about watching the whole process is gruesome enough to strike fear into normal people’s mind. Thus I believe death penalty has served as a very good deterrent in causing someone to think twice before they commit an offence.

Also, death penalty also can be seen as a form of returning justice to the victims’ families. How would you feel if the murderer who killed one of your family members is still walking freely on the streets just like a normal person?

However, who can ensure that the judge or the jury who give the death sentence is being objective and not being emotional? If the judiciary panel is being subjective, isn’t it taking revenge and in other words a murder?

Ask yourself this, who don’t make mistakes in their life? Often, some people commit an offence out of desperation or in a fit of rage. So why can’t we give them a second chance, a chance to turn over a new leaf? Although we cannot ensure that all of them will not commit the same mistake again, but at least we can offer the choice of counseling or rehabilitation. This will really be a great help to those convicts who are determined to atone for their mistakes.

To conclude, I feel that death penalty is a deterrent more than a murder as I believe that with the consequences of committing an offence lingering at the back of the mind, people will see as a warning and perhaps stop their offences while they still can. Whether is it a murder, it all depends on how subjective or objective one’s viewpoint is.