Article - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25899047-23289,00.html
Man begs court: allow me to starve
Nicolas Perpitch | August 08, 2009
Article from: The Australian
PERTH quadriplegic Christian Rossiter will continue searching for ways to travel to Switzerland to die if his request to starve to death is rejected by a court.
The case could be decided within a week after West Australian Chief Justice Wayne Martin yesterday fast-tracked a hearing on the matter to next Friday.
Mr Rossiter, 49, is a spastic quadriplegic who requires full-time care. He is fed nutrients and hydrated through a tube.
A former rock climber and bushwalker, he sustained severe spinal injuries after being hit by a car in 2004 while riding a bicycle. He has described his life as a living hell and wants his carers to stop feeding him so he can die.
His first choice had been to fly to a euthanasia clinic in Switzerland but that holds a legal risk that anyone who helped him could be charged with assisting a suicide.
Mr Rossiter's carer, Brightwater Care Group, has asked the WA Supreme Court for a declaration that it can continue feeding him when he has expressly requested that it stop.
The case is being closely watched by the legal fraternity for the potential precedent it could set over whether someone should be force-fed, and the implications for suicide.
In court yesterday, Mr Rossiter's lawyer, John Hammond, requested a bedside hearing for his client to give evidence.
Mr Hammond said Mr Rossiter's enormous suffering would otherwise be "unwittingly sanitised" if his evidence were presented in a statement.
"Despite his body failing dramatically, he is a very intelligent man," he said.
Chief Justice Martin said the only factual issues that may arise were mental incapacity and whether Mr Rossiter had been fully informed of the course of action he wanted to take and its consequences.
Mr Hammond told the court Mr Rossiter was being advised of the consequences, while Brightwater lawyer Jeremy Allanson SC said he did not intend to present evidence on mental incapacity.
Asked by Chief Justice Martin whether he would seek a cross-order preventing Mr Rossiter being fed if Brightwater's application were upheld, Mr Hammond said that was likely.
Outside the court, Mr Hammond said Mr Rossiter was clear in his wishes.
"That he no longer be fed, that he be allowed to die in peace," he said.
"He is still contemplating if anyone will take him to Switzerland to be euthanased immediately. He no longer wants to live."
On Thursday, Mr Rossiter said he was a prisoner in his own body.
"My choice is to die. I'm a rock climber so I have no fear of death, just pain. I only fear pain, severe pain," he said.
Western Australia's Right To Life Association has argued Brightwater would be given the equivalent of an exemption from a murder charge if it were prevented from feeding Mr Rossiter.
Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke said starvation would be "state-sanctioned torture" and repeated his call to legalise euthanasia.
"It is illegal in Australia to provide the appropriate drugs that would give Chris a peaceful and humane death," he said.
The Hong Kong-based Health and Lifestyle Channel wants to set up a 24-hour webcam on Mr Rossiter if his feeding is stopped.
The channel's chairman and founder, Robert Chua, said it would be part of a debate on euthanasia, which Dr Nitschke is flying to Hong Kong to participate in. Mr Chua said he had not spoken to Mr Rossiter about the idea.
Commentary: Should Euthenasia be allowed?
Imagine lying on a bed knowing that you are going to die in a few months. Imagine lying on the bed being fed through a tube. Imagine lying on the bed dependant on everybody around you. Imagine lying on the bed suffering in pain and misery.
In such a scenario most people would not want to live however euthenasia, or mercy killing, is still against the law in many countries. The question that arises, however, is why. Why are people not allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to live or die? Why are they not allowed to die in dignity rather than suffer in pain? There are many reasons for not having euthenasia legalized but two reasons stand out from the rest. Firstly it devalues human lives and secondly euthanasia if allowed can lead to a situation where wanting to die will not be a matter of one’s own choice.
Allowing euthanasia might be sending out a wrong message. By allowing euthanasia, we will be sending out the message that it is better to be dead than sick or disabled. Essentially to a disabled or terminally ill person, this means that their lives are not worth living. This will lead to a situation where the disabled and sick will become frustrated with their lives and also want to end it, leading to more and more people killing themselves or even to a situation where normal people kill these people. However every human life is precious and every life lost is one too many. Euthanasia will lead to a mindset in which people will think that the sick and disabled should die and it therefore should not be allowed.
Euthanasia, if allowed, may lead to situation whereby it is not voluntarily. If euthanasia is allowed, many people might die, not because they want to, but because they are forced to. Those concerned may come under pressure to end their lives. The pressure may come from the family who regard the sick person as a burden and would pressurize him to end his life. Similarly a person who thinks he is being a financial burden might want to end his life. Pressure many also come from just legalizing euthanasia as mentioned in my previous point. Also as it is expensive to provide treatment for the terminally ill, doctors might pressurize the patient to die or even purposely kill them in order to minimize costs or free up beds. There is no way of judging whether the decision to die was the person’s own and therefore euthanasia should not be legalized as pressure from family, friends and even the doctor may play too big a part in the decision.
However euthanasia is considered by many to be a humane option that will help end ones suffering and let one die with dignity and not having to be cared for by nurses. Many people will rather die than suffer so much pain. Not only that a person should have full freedom with regards to what he should do with his life, even if it includes ending it. What this people not take into account is that euthanasia is essentially murder and human life is sacred and under no circumstances should it be taken. Also the decision to die should not be made by the sick or disabled person himself as his decision may affect many lives including those of his friends and family. Modern medicines and treatments reduce the pain and sufferings to a great extend, therefore there is no need for euthanasia.
Historically euthanasia has never been allowed in most societies. History has taught us that there is no place for euthanasia in our world and that is why there are only 2 countries where it is legal today. If euthanasia has almost never been allowed in the thousands of years of human history, why should it be allowed now? In fact as I have explained, euthanasia has no place I our society. So if I was that terminally ill person, I would still not go for euthanasia.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
ERP Assignment
It was another mundane Monday. I hurled my bag on the dusty floor under my table and slumped onto my seat. Feeling rather lethargic, I closed off to almost everything happening around me, admiring the monotonous flat scenery of the classroom. I thought it was going to be another dull day and so looking at the way things were going, I could not have been more right. The same old classroom and the agonising silence surrounded me.
Just when I thought I was going to fall asleep, the door flung open and the discipline mistress, Mrs. Tan, stormed in. This was something not bargained for and the rarity of such an event aroused not only curiosity but also struck terror in our hearts. We were curious because our class was considered to be the best class in Northfields Primary school and there seemed to be absolutely no reason why Mrs. Tan graced our class with her much dreaded presence. At the same time we were petrified as we were cognizant of the fact that we were in serious trouble as Mrs. Tan had a reputation for being a ferocious teacher. Also one thing was for sure now, that today was not going to be just another boring day.
She adjusted her thick glasses as she looked at each and everyone carefully. After what seemed like an entire period she finally broke the silence by stating the great expectations she had of the class and how we had shattered those expectations into bits. Still confused, we gave her our undivided attention.
Suddenly, the expression on everyone’s face changed and a buzz erupted. The last sentence she said was, “I know that some of you have been playing cards in school”. As much as we would have hated to admit it, it was true. Nearly the entire class had been involved in card games over the past couple of months even though it meant breaking one of the school rules.
“Shut up!” she thundered, “Alex and John come here.” The colour on their faces vanished. Alex and John, though were not the only one involved’ were behind the brains behind the entire idea of playing cards in school. They walked up slowly, possibly trying to delay what they were about to go through.
She pointed her finger to the table and we knew that their punishment was public caning. What we were about to witness would completely shatter the audacity and exuberance with which we played cards or broke any other rule. With each stroke of cane, we started to fear even the prospect of breaking such a rule more and more. I was almost sure that Mrs. Tan was aware that there were more people involved but she ensured that her harsh treatment of these two offenders left a great impact on us and those who played cards stopped playing and those who did not play cards kept even further away. That indeed happened.
This completely changed my perception of punishment. I began to see punishment as a way of creating fear in other people’s hearts so that they will stay within the confines of the rules. This perception of punishment of mine still stands.
Just when I thought I was going to fall asleep, the door flung open and the discipline mistress, Mrs. Tan, stormed in. This was something not bargained for and the rarity of such an event aroused not only curiosity but also struck terror in our hearts. We were curious because our class was considered to be the best class in Northfields Primary school and there seemed to be absolutely no reason why Mrs. Tan graced our class with her much dreaded presence. At the same time we were petrified as we were cognizant of the fact that we were in serious trouble as Mrs. Tan had a reputation for being a ferocious teacher. Also one thing was for sure now, that today was not going to be just another boring day.
She adjusted her thick glasses as she looked at each and everyone carefully. After what seemed like an entire period she finally broke the silence by stating the great expectations she had of the class and how we had shattered those expectations into bits. Still confused, we gave her our undivided attention.
Suddenly, the expression on everyone’s face changed and a buzz erupted. The last sentence she said was, “I know that some of you have been playing cards in school”. As much as we would have hated to admit it, it was true. Nearly the entire class had been involved in card games over the past couple of months even though it meant breaking one of the school rules.
“Shut up!” she thundered, “Alex and John come here.” The colour on their faces vanished. Alex and John, though were not the only one involved’ were behind the brains behind the entire idea of playing cards in school. They walked up slowly, possibly trying to delay what they were about to go through.
She pointed her finger to the table and we knew that their punishment was public caning. What we were about to witness would completely shatter the audacity and exuberance with which we played cards or broke any other rule. With each stroke of cane, we started to fear even the prospect of breaking such a rule more and more. I was almost sure that Mrs. Tan was aware that there were more people involved but she ensured that her harsh treatment of these two offenders left a great impact on us and those who played cards stopped playing and those who did not play cards kept even further away. That indeed happened.
This completely changed my perception of punishment. I began to see punishment as a way of creating fear in other people’s hearts so that they will stay within the confines of the rules. This perception of punishment of mine still stands.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Goodness
Why are humans evern good to each other? This might be a difficult question to answer as every individual is different and every individual might be carry out an act of goodness for a different reason. However i feel most people are good towards other people because they expect others to be good towards them and help them out when they need it. I feel that no one is just good or in other words good without a reason.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Commentary test: ‘Deaf to the world
Rohan Gupta (5)
3B
Question 1:
Deaf to the world is an article that discusses the main issue of people using cellphones or earphones and how they might distract the user. According to the articles people, youth in particular, are glued to their cellphone screen or absorbed in the music coming out of their earphones to such an extent that they do not notice what is going on around them and this can lead to safety concerns and accidents. However the article provides a balance point of view by bringing in the viewpoint of these users - that it is other peoples’ responsibility to look out for them.
Question 2: Entertainment = Safety risk? Ban use of cellphone and earphones on the move.
Even the thought of banning the use of earphones and cellphone use on the move sounds crazy. It is an absolutely absurd idea that is not feasible at all and only people with no sense of enjoyment and entertainment will want to implement. Being an avid earphone user myself, this was my stand on the banning of earphones and cellphone use on the move. Even as recently as this morning, I was blasting rock music into my ears at max volume and moving soaking in the adventure of a cool new hand phone game as I made my way to school. I was so engrossed in the music and game that I did not realize when the traffic signal turned red. Being stranded halfway across the road and staring down at the handphone screen, I was still not able not notice the red signal and hear the angry drivers’ horns thanks to the addictive beat of a Simple Plan song. In fact the only time I realized that the signal was red was when a car nearly bumped into me. This incident made me reflect upon the safety of using earphones and cellphones on the move especially while walking along the street or crossing the road.
Using cellphones and listening to music on the move came across as a safety hazard that could lead to many accidents. I feel that the use of earphone and cellphone should be banned while walking across the street or crossing the road. This is mainly because people listening to earphones are placing considerable safety risks on themselves and others. It might also be the responsibility of others to look out for such people but however I feel that one should take care of his/hers own wellbeing and not depend on others.
Use of handheld media devices is fine when permitted to traveling in the bus or train but very questionable when it comes to using them on the move as there are a lot of safety issues involved. The people who are using these media devices pose a threat to themselves as well as others around them simply because they are distracted by these devices and are unable to look out for any other people, cars or even bicycles that are coming by. Studies have shown that distraction from handheld electronic devices such as the mobile phone and iPods have been one of the major causes of road accidents. Also the simple fact that people using these devices, as proved by studies, have a reduced reaction time by up to 35% and they are thus not able to avoid bumping into people bicycles of even cars easily. Therefore it is evident that use of these kind of media devices pose a safety threat as users are not able to watch out for themselves and other people because of the distraction and reduced reaction time.
However use of such media devices should not be banned as it is also the responsibility of people around these users to watch out for them. This might be true that other people, e.g. drivers should watch out for people using such media devices. This a often used argument to diminish the stand that earphones should be banned but however I don’t think it is possible. Going back to the incident that happened today, it is evident that people tried to warn me by blowing horns but I was too distracted and could not hear them. My point here is this that it is hard for other drivers to watch out and warn such users about danger when they are so distracted and unresponsive. Also it is everyone own responsibility to take care of himself/herself and not leave it to others. Therefore I find that this argument to not be feasible.
I am glad that I have realized the safety risks that come along with using media devices on the move in time. However not everyone may be as lucky as me and might end up in a disastrous accident before this fact hits them. Therefore the government should take the initiative to ban earphone and cellphone use on the go so as to protect its people.
Rohan Gupta (5)
3B
Question 1:
Deaf to the world is an article that discusses the main issue of people using cellphones or earphones and how they might distract the user. According to the articles people, youth in particular, are glued to their cellphone screen or absorbed in the music coming out of their earphones to such an extent that they do not notice what is going on around them and this can lead to safety concerns and accidents. However the article provides a balance point of view by bringing in the viewpoint of these users - that it is other peoples’ responsibility to look out for them.
Question 2: Entertainment = Safety risk? Ban use of cellphone and earphones on the move.
Even the thought of banning the use of earphones and cellphone use on the move sounds crazy. It is an absolutely absurd idea that is not feasible at all and only people with no sense of enjoyment and entertainment will want to implement. Being an avid earphone user myself, this was my stand on the banning of earphones and cellphone use on the move. Even as recently as this morning, I was blasting rock music into my ears at max volume and moving soaking in the adventure of a cool new hand phone game as I made my way to school. I was so engrossed in the music and game that I did not realize when the traffic signal turned red. Being stranded halfway across the road and staring down at the handphone screen, I was still not able not notice the red signal and hear the angry drivers’ horns thanks to the addictive beat of a Simple Plan song. In fact the only time I realized that the signal was red was when a car nearly bumped into me. This incident made me reflect upon the safety of using earphones and cellphones on the move especially while walking along the street or crossing the road.
Using cellphones and listening to music on the move came across as a safety hazard that could lead to many accidents. I feel that the use of earphone and cellphone should be banned while walking across the street or crossing the road. This is mainly because people listening to earphones are placing considerable safety risks on themselves and others. It might also be the responsibility of others to look out for such people but however I feel that one should take care of his/hers own wellbeing and not depend on others.
Use of handheld media devices is fine when permitted to traveling in the bus or train but very questionable when it comes to using them on the move as there are a lot of safety issues involved. The people who are using these media devices pose a threat to themselves as well as others around them simply because they are distracted by these devices and are unable to look out for any other people, cars or even bicycles that are coming by. Studies have shown that distraction from handheld electronic devices such as the mobile phone and iPods have been one of the major causes of road accidents. Also the simple fact that people using these devices, as proved by studies, have a reduced reaction time by up to 35% and they are thus not able to avoid bumping into people bicycles of even cars easily. Therefore it is evident that use of these kind of media devices pose a safety threat as users are not able to watch out for themselves and other people because of the distraction and reduced reaction time.
However use of such media devices should not be banned as it is also the responsibility of people around these users to watch out for them. This might be true that other people, e.g. drivers should watch out for people using such media devices. This a often used argument to diminish the stand that earphones should be banned but however I don’t think it is possible. Going back to the incident that happened today, it is evident that people tried to warn me by blowing horns but I was too distracted and could not hear them. My point here is this that it is hard for other drivers to watch out and warn such users about danger when they are so distracted and unresponsive. Also it is everyone own responsibility to take care of himself/herself and not leave it to others. Therefore I find that this argument to not be feasible.
I am glad that I have realized the safety risks that come along with using media devices on the move in time. However not everyone may be as lucky as me and might end up in a disastrous accident before this fact hits them. Therefore the government should take the initiative to ban earphone and cellphone use on the go so as to protect its people.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
English - Should streaking be allowed?? - Intro.
I was walking along the beach, enjoying my day. However someone ran past me. This was usually another boring occurence about which i have nothing intersting to to say about....apart from the simple fact that the person was wearing..er nothing. Though i was apalled at this expression of youthful exuberance, i just pretended nothing had happened. However there seem to be some people who were staring at the youtj with utter disgust as if he had done something very unacceptable. However i don't think so. This act which is called streaking is an expression of one's freedom and an example of youthful exuberance that should be allowed in controlled situations. The primary reasons for this is that the decision to streak is a pesonal decision that has is not meant to sexually intimidate or offend anyone but rather it is to excersise one's own freedom. Also streaking is widely accepted in western culture with many universities allowing it.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
English - Should streaking be allowed??
Streaking is an expression of one's freedom and an example of youthful exuberance that should be allowed in controlled situations. The primary reasons for this is that the decision to streak is a pesonal decision that has is not meant to sexually intimidate or offend anyone but rather it is to excersise one's own freedom. Also streaking is widely accepted in western culture with many universities allowing it.
Streaking is often done because individuals want to express themselves and not be confined to rules. Every individual has a right to express himself/hersrlf and also wants to be free from rules and have some fun. How would you feel is this right was taken away from you? Therefore streaking should be allowed as it is one's personal decision and we have no right to stop the person from being free or expressing himself/herself. Also streaking has no intention of sexually intimidating anyone else. An example of this were some NUS students who streaked in celebration of their hall's victory over other halls and merely to express themselves but not to sexually intimidate anyone else. Therefore streaking being a personal choice and one's right, should be allowed.
Many universities in the west openly allow streaking with one of the examples being the University of Chicago. It is understandable that Asian culture cannot be as liberal as western cultures but however we should also not stop this kind of acts. With globalisation, it is important that countries become aware of each other's culture and learn to respect and accept it. Similarly Asians countries should allow streaking, though in a controlled manner.
In conclusion i will like to say that streaking should be allowed as firslty it is a matter of one's personal choice and secondly other universties in the West allow it and Asians should also open up to this kind of ideas.
Streaking is often done because individuals want to express themselves and not be confined to rules. Every individual has a right to express himself/hersrlf and also wants to be free from rules and have some fun. How would you feel is this right was taken away from you? Therefore streaking should be allowed as it is one's personal decision and we have no right to stop the person from being free or expressing himself/herself. Also streaking has no intention of sexually intimidating anyone else. An example of this were some NUS students who streaked in celebration of their hall's victory over other halls and merely to express themselves but not to sexually intimidate anyone else. Therefore streaking being a personal choice and one's right, should be allowed.
Many universities in the west openly allow streaking with one of the examples being the University of Chicago. It is understandable that Asian culture cannot be as liberal as western cultures but however we should also not stop this kind of acts. With globalisation, it is important that countries become aware of each other's culture and learn to respect and accept it. Similarly Asians countries should allow streaking, though in a controlled manner.
In conclusion i will like to say that streaking should be allowed as firslty it is a matter of one's personal choice and secondly other universties in the West allow it and Asians should also open up to this kind of ideas.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
What is an exposition?
An exposition is a piece of writing that provides important information and explains it also a piece of writing, be it fiction writing, textbooks, recipes, cookbooks or even scientific reports. Expository writing is not limited to those above and appears in various types of texts.
The exposition serves the purpose of describing and informing the subject of a particular piece of writing to the reader and allows the reader to get a clearer picture on what is happening and will make it easier for the reader to understand what is going on in a particular text.
An exposition has to have a strong organization so that it presents the relevant information clearly. It has to be focused on the particular topic. A good exposition should be able to inform and describe to the reader clearly and effectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)