Free choice, but how can we keep the doctors out of this?

Christine argues for the “Right to Die” on her blog http://christinemmooore.blogspot.com/ and supports the “Death with Dignity Act” in Oregon

I consider myself a “pro life” person and have very strong stances on controversial issues like the death penalty and abortion, but in this case I do agree with Christine’s “pro-choice for death” position – at least to a certain degree. What made me think differently here, is the fact that someone gets to make their own free choice to end their own life voluntarily.
Well this would be the “best” case scenario. If someone who is suffering from pain, who has lost all hope for a cure decides to end his own life. But what if this someone is not in a condition to make such a decision for himself? Who gets to decide then? The doctors? The family? The Court? Which part of the family? What about those cases where the husband or wife wants something totally different than the parents? There are many questions which need to be considered and I can completely understand the doctor’s dilemma they find themselves in.
Does the Hippocratic Oath not matter to modern physicians anymore?
Historically, the accepted code of ethical conduct for doctors has been the Hippocratic Oath. Hippocrates was a Greek physician and called by many "the father of medicine." The Hippocratic Oath has served as a model of professional conduct and for the ethical practice of medicine. One portion of the oath reads: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."

So yes it is a tough decision for a doctor to help someone die, to end his/her suffering.

My personal viewpoint is that the whole concept of doctor assisted suicide is a total distortion of the basic commitment of the physician to support and help life. I cannot see how a physician can legitamize bringing about death. But I do believe humans should have a right to decide whether they want to end their OWN lives or not. If the US is going to support such a bill like the “Death with Dignity” act in Oregon they need to make sure that the doctors will be involved in it as little as possible. It would also help if each individual thought about how they would want to be “helped” in such a situation, if it ever occurs, and maybe write something like a “medical will.”

Liberty equals Privacy and Privacy equals Abortion?

I am really confused about the meaning of the 14th Amendment and how it is being incorporated today.

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision prevents states from outlawing abortion. The argument was that a woman’s right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy which is protected by the 14th Amendment. (where is privacy mentioned in the 14th amendment?)The decision gives a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. Prohibiting abortion is a violation of the 14th Amendment, according to the Court.

When I read the 14th Amendment I didn’t find any reference to abortion. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, was meant to protect freed slaves from persecution and unlawful imprisonment, and to make sure they enjoyed equality under the law.

In the Roe v. Wade case the court interpreted liberty to include a "right to privacy", and then they figured that if women have a right to privacy, then that must include the right to have an abortion, since it's their body and bearing or not bearing a child is a very private matter. Under the 14th Amendment’s “personal liberty”, women are given the right to receive an abortion. With this right, women are now able to enjoy, like men, the rights to fully use the powers of their minds and bodies.

It is not my intention to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong. Instead I want to discuss why the 14th amendment is applied to abortions but not prostitution? If the Constitution embraces a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy because her body is a private matter then why is not a private matter for a woman to sell her body for money?

The way I interpret the Court's decision based on the 14th Amendment is that anything affecting a woman’s body is her choice, therefore prostitution laws are unconstitutional.
The anti-prostitution laws which are in effect are violating the rights of the prostitutes. They deny the prostitutes what the American Constitution allows them. Prostitution is the voluntary sale or rental of a labor service. People use their own bodies for their services, and have the absolute right to decide how those labor services should be used. As long as prostitution is voluntary, there is no justification for government interference. The Fourteenth Amendment of the American constitution states that all individuals have the right to life, liberty, and equality. Prostitution is therefore not a moral issue, it is a constitutional issue and should not be outlawed in 49 states.
If the 14th Amendment is about equality, why is it not being applied equally?

It is not about wrongful conviction, it is about wrongful punishment!

Misty discusses the issue of death penalty on her blog http://www.01281985.blogspot.com/, and although I should have learned from past experiences that discussing this topic with Americans makes just as much sense as discussing why Chinese like to eat so much rice, I just can’t resist; I have to comment on her post.

The research Misty has done already brought out some of the facts why the death penalty isn’t worth it.

1) Yes executions cost a lot more than keeping someone in prison for life without the option to parole.

2) Innocent people have been executed. My neighbor is a police officer and tried to convince me that this happens very rarely. The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. So I would say, the wrongful execution of just one innocent person is more than enough to stop this kind of punishment.

3) Death penalty has racism written all over! Yes race does play a major role! The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country.

4) Last but not least: this kind of punishment does NOTHING! Scientific studies have always shown that executions do NOT deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.

So this “eye for an eye” approach does not work and it is not human, because it would also mean that if you rape my little daughter I get to rape yours, if you burn my house down, I burn down yours… and wow this almost sounds like the “state of nature” to me. Is this what we really want?
No this “eye for an eye” thing is definitely not appropriate for a society which says it values human rights. And the death penalty is the biggest denial of human rights. It is NOT the right type of punishment because it doesn’t work.
Revenge. That’s what it is about. Nothing else. Just revenge for a terrible crime.
Does it bring back victims to life? No of course not! Does it help families with their grief? No, stories have shown it only makes them feel better for a short period of time. Death penalty is so wrong, it costs the taxpayer too much money, and it simply does not deter crime.

Now what about "OUR" voting rights?

Voting Rights in the U.S. have come a long way since this country announced its independence from Britain. Not only white male property owners can now vote but also African Americans and women and of course every other non-white, and non-African American person who is the owner of a “blue passport”. So what about us whose passports have a different color? I have lived here for over 6 years and I don’t get to vote because my passport is red and not blue. Somehow this really upsets me because since I live here, I would like to take my part on American politics as well, even if this is “just” through voting.
The foreign-born population of the United States has reached its highest level since the great wave of immigration between 1880 and 1920 and is now estimated to be 33 million, or 11.8 percent of the total population. Today, many communities in New York, Florida, and California have immigrant populations of 40 percent or more. (source: http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=265).

The estimated 12 million legal permanent residents who cannot vote, may work in the US, pay taxes, send their children to school, and even serve in the military.
So basically what this means is that I can live here like a US citizen, and even serve this country in the military and possibly die for this country in a war but I don’t get to vote?

The practice of non-citizen voting has spread to more than 20 countries around the world, including to communities in New Zealand, Chile, Israel, and all Member States of the European Union. So US-citizens with a legal resident status, living in Europe, do get to vote in that country!
I believe that non-citizen voting promotes civic education and civic engagement among future Americans.
People who may argue that all it takes is to apply for citizenship to gain this voting right may want to consider that the biggest reason to hesitate before applying for citizenship is often emotional, not rational; many do not want to take the Oath of Allegiance until they "feel American."
Politicians should really consider these 12 million potential votes hanging in the balance and give us the right to vote.

American Workers don't need to know everything, do they?

Shamus Cooke, who is a social service worker, trade unionist and writer for Workers Action argues in his blog at http://www.counterpunch.org/cooke10132009.html that Obama is keeping secrets from American Workers.

The author claims that although Obama acknowledges the fact of global economic crisis and talks about a “new world order” he doesn’t explain how this affects the American working class. He lists several examples like the long-term decline of the dollar and the US debt (which was mainly caused by foreign wars and bailing out banks) that seem to give Obama enough reasons to ask for sacrifices which need to be made in other areas.

What the author criticizes the most is that political officials keep it a secret which sacrifices will have to be made here and how. At the recent G-20 summit part of the secret was revealed when Obama pushed a plan that aimed “to reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21st century.” “Part of the plan said that “G-20 members with sustained, significant external deficits [the U.S.] pledge to undertake policies to support private savings and undertake fiscal consolidation while maintaining open markets and strengthening export sectors.”

According to Cooke this translates into reducing “domestic consumption” and increasing exports. His audience which is being addressed in this blog is clearly the American working class which seem to suffer the most from this plan. Reducing domestic consumption basically means lowering the standard of living of U.S. workers through lower wages and the elimination of “entitlement programs” so U.S. corporations will be able to export more on the global market.

I do agree with Cooke that some of the changes which are currently being made seem to benefit the higher and better earning class much more than those who really need it. This makes me wonder if the Democrats are slowly but surely becoming an upper class party and the working middle class people are left by themselves with no support from the outside. I do believe though that there is hope for the economy.

Should Texas students be kept in school?

State Sen. Rodney Ellis and Robert Sanborn claim in an article in the Austin American Statesman that Texas students should be kept from dropping out of school.

Sanborn, who is the executive director of Children at Risk, a Houston-based child advocacy group, states that only 65 % of all High School students in Texas graduate from High School, in urban areas the number of kids who complete High School is about 50 %. He argues that drop outs impose financial and economic costs on us all. The authors are not only addressing parents and students with their article, they are trying to persuade the reader that this will have an affect on all of us.

They support their claim with a recent report from the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, which says that “even if only 20 percent of our students are dropping out of high school, the impact on our economy is staggering.” The reason for this is that dropouts are less likely to be employed and will earn less. This means they contribute less in taxes, receive more welfare and the risk for them to end up in jail is significantly higher than for the ones who complete High School.

According to Ellis and Sanborn, research shows that it is possible to identify up to half of the students who are likely to drop out of school. Texas has a student-level data reporting system, which has the potential to help teachers and counselors to identify the students who need the most support. They suggest to expand the use if this data to establish an early warning system for educators. Students who drop out from school disconnect from their schools long before and were often labeled as "troublemakers" by their teachers as the authors explain.

It makes sense to keep supporting the public school system with specific funds and programs. A major responsibility for the success of students lays within the schools, the educators and educational programs. Mentoring students, and programs like “Reach out to Dropouts”, where they knock on doors to persuade kids to come back to school seem like valuable options. One thing though the authors forgot to consider is the important role of the parents. Where does their responsibility come into play? Shouldn’t it all start at the student’s home where positive role models provide a solid basis for motivation to success?
I believe schools can only succeed if there is a close cooperation with the parents who get involved and show great interest in their children's success.

The biggest influence on a child's life and attitude comes from the parents. If there is no positive support from that end than no "reach out to dropouts" programs will help put those kids back in school. Another idea would be to show them their options they have after they graduate from High School. Maybe College isn't for everybody, and this means there has to be some other form of quality training available for young adults to contribute to the American workforce and to feel good about themselves at the same time.

Community is NOT a dirty word!

I would like to share an article I read in Newsweek recently about how "Obama recognizes the value of community colleges more than many of the schools themselves."

I think this could be of interest for all of us since we are all attending a Community College.

The article talks about a proposal he has made a couple of months ago which was to invest 12 billion dollars in Community Colleges. This proposal is now being debated in Congress.

President Obama has stressed the importance of education more than once in the past. A well founded education is especially important in a time of rising economic instability and unemployment. Well educated Americans will be able to contribute to the American workforce much better.

Although Community Colleges are often looked down on as “Communities as last resorts” they can give a good head start in times where paying high tuition for colleges becomes increasingly difficult. It makes good sense to keep supporting these low-cost institutions through special funds.

Where I am from it is possible to get trained at a vocational school and still be able to get a decent job, it is not necessary to have a College degree. The USA does not have a comparable system of education though, so it is essential for most people to go down this path.

Obama knows that the easiest and fastest way to increase the number of people with a college degree and eventually place them in well-paying jobs, is to get them started at community colleges which provide much more flexibility besides its low tuition.

Community is NOT a dirty word. It defines “a group of individuals with a common interest.” And our common interest is to get qualified education at an affordable price. What’s wrong with that?