Advantages of euthanasia in a modern society

            The issue of euthanasia has always been an immensely controversial topic in the eyes of modern society. Many take a stand against it, while others consider it to be a justifiable way of ending a human being’s sufferings. This following essay is going to discuss why method of doctor-assisted dying is an equitable way of freeing a person who is destined to remain in a lethal condition.

            Firstly, every human being has the right to die in dignity (ACLU). It is inhumane to force anybody to stay alive once they are terminally ill and would prefer to end their sufferings. For a person to experience their own decay it might be terrible to acknowledge their new incapabilities. Not to mention the fact that withstanding immense pain requires a very clear state of mind, which most ill people lack. Therefore, providing that they decide at which point they would want to pass away, it should be considered their constitutional right to have that wish granted.

            Secondly, caring for seriously ill patients is often said to place an enormous burden on the person’s caregivers. Furthermore, in most cases it is the family that is in a greater emotional need than the gravely ill people themselves. In fact, they might even subconsciously suggest „suicidal” thoughts to the sufferer (Johnston).  From that derives the fact that no longer having the duty of caring for a terminally ill relative might place a lesser burden on the family members.

            Thirdly, euthanasia pressures the national health care system of a country into providing space for patients who are terminally ill and have no chance to recover, knowing also that they are in uncontrollable pain which prevents them from rejoicing even over the basic things of human life. (Merrill Matthews) While beds are taken up by those people in hospitals, there is much less room to house temporarily ill patients. Thus, if gravely ill individuals were granted the right to decide when they are no longer capable of handling the pain, it would also relieve the burden on the health care system of the country.

            To conclude, euthanasia is a rather divisive topic, with many reasons for or against the method. It is definitely of great importance to make educated decisions in regards to the matter, considering the feelings and will of both the family and the patient.

 

(ACLU), American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill. 1996.

Johnston, Brian. Death as a Salesman - What's Wrong with Assisted Suicide. 1994.

Merrill Matthews, Jr., PhD. Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. 1998.

The Role and Importance of Effective Written Teacher Feedback

By Fruzsina Berke

Although responding to student writing is an important and meaningful area of teacher’s work, it is often described in negative terms, referred to as tedious and unrewarding. Usually, current literature and traditional pedagogy provide little guidance for motivating student writers to look beyond their surface errors. Effective written teacher feedback, therefore, is of profound importance to develop and to refine students’ communicative intentions. The main purpose of this essay is to present the major problems of current feedback practice through shedding light on the mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and practice related to written feedback; furthermore, this essay introduces two feedback types, evaluative and formative, and explains why formative feedback is effective in empowering students as self-regulated learners.

Studying the mismatches between teacher’s beliefs and written feedback practice, it becomes evident that the common error-focused approach—inevitably drawing teachers’ attention to weaknesses rather than strengths—is the source most of the problematic issues related to feedback practice. As Lee (2009) states, teachers pay most attention to language form when giving feedback, even though they believe that there is more to good writing than accuracy. When interviewed, all the teachers claimed that good writing does not only depend on accuracy but also on the development of ideas and organization. Nevertheless, the feedback analysis shows that they highly focus on language form in their response to student writing due to the public examination culture in schools. In effect, teachers place the emphasis on accuracy, fluency and vocabulary to prepare their students for exams.

Another important point that Lee (2009) makes is that students are not given enough room to improve their writing. In spite of teachers’ belief that students should take greater responsibility for learning as well as for locating and correcting their own mistakes, the feedback analysis shows that about 70% of the feedback is direct, including teachers locating and correcting errors for students. When asked about it, most of the teachers stated that since students are unable to locate errors for themselves, they have to help them. The problem with this is that without peer or self-evaluation, students are not provided with opportunities to develop responsibility for learning.

Taking all of this into consideration, it can be seen that there are a number of gaps between teachers’ beliefs and practice in written feedback. Thus, the type of feedback needed is one that can effectively help close this gap and change the common error-focused attitude: formative feedback.

According to McGarrell and Verbeem (2007), the two extremes of the teacher feedback are evaluative and formative feedback. Evaluative feedback is the one discussed in great detail above; it is the kind of feedback that expresses to a writer how well the instructor’s instructional priorities have been met, reflects a preoccupation with sentence-level errors (Hyland, 2003), and takes the form of directives for improvement on present or future assignments.

In contrast, formative feedback is rooted in the assumption that writers create their own communicative purpose (McGarrel & Verbeem, 2007). It encourages students to take a closer look at the text, so it often consists of questions intended to raise awareness of the reader’s understanding of the meaning of the writing. Most importantly, it prioritizes content and organization over form. This seems logical, as in the real world, texts are also primarily read for the ideas they offer and not for their representation of the writer’s knowledge of grammar rules; not to mention the fact that attention directed to form at this stage denies the developing writer the learning opportunity in reconsidering the content. Moreover, formative feedback is highly personalized, directly addressing not only the content of the composition but also the person who wrote it, relating the ideas expressed in the text to the interests and abilities of the individual writer.

Considerable research evidence shows that effective feedback results in learning benefits (Black & William, 1998). Formative feedback helps students improve their own performance: that is, to take action to reduce the confutation between their intentions and the resulting effect. This is crucial in empowering students as self-regulated learners. According to Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), formative feedback provides valuable information about how the student’s current state relates to their own objectives and standards, which leads students to actively interpret external feedback in relation to their internal goals – and that is a skill typical of the self-regulated learner. Therefore, self-assessment can lead to significant achievements in learning; learners who are self-regulated demonstrate a higher level of persistence, resourcefulness, and confidence (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001).

In conclusion, by providing formative feedback that seeks to discover and clarify intended meanings, teachers exploit developing writer’s basic need to communicate. Thus motivated to refine their intended messages and to consider alternative ways of expressing their ideas, students experience potentially valuable learning opportunities.

References

Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT journal, 63(1), 13–19.

McGarrell, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT journal, 61(3), 228–236.

Nicol, D. J, &Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self‐regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deadly research in science

In this essay it is going to be discussed whether it is needed to use animals in the scientific fields in order to achieve important findings. The main purpose will be to prove that it is completely unnecessary and unethical.

The first topic is how animals are treated while conducting medical research. This might be the most controversial topic of all since many doctors believe that the only way to gather new information is by using animals in order to save human lives. To give an example scientists use animals trying to find a drug to cure Alzheimer’s disease. Experimenters gave drugs to mice which seemed to be working on them, but when tried on humans they failed. After that a research in connection with this showed that using human cells – instead of genetically modified mice – is more likely to help and give a solution. In other words these findings make the old method useless and inefficient. The results prove that the new method could help to understand the disease better and it would be easier to gather information, not just about Alzheimers.

The next step is psychological research. The example introduces the research carried on by the National Institutes of Health where baby chimpanzee monkeys are observed to learn about mental illness. What they do is that they separate the baby monkeys from their mothers in order to cause them mental trauma and then leave them alone. They suffer from fear, depression and their pain can lead to self-inflicted wounds.

However, this is not a help for people, because the experimenters themselves admitted that this treatment cannot be applied to humans at all. They said that it has nothing to do with human psychological trauma and brain disorders. It is not enough that the original purpose was to help humans, but this leads nowhere, since they do not help monkeys either.

Moving on now to another example of a psychological test: Scientists not only experiment on small animals, because in other tests they also torture cats and dogs by drilling a hole into their skull and then implanting metal coils in their eyes. They are almost blinded and get no food. They are forced to listen to the slightest sounds around them so that they can get food. All of this is only for examining their reaction. Many of them get infections from this abuse. The scientists who conducted this research have hidden the pictures from everyone. This is because they fear the response of the public in case they will learn about what they have been doing.

The next issue is cosmetic research. In this example guinea pigs are tested with chemicals injected under their skin in order to see if they have an allergic reaction to them. This is important because a new method can save their lives. This new skin-sensitivity test uses a 3D human-derived skin model that is a more perfect replica of the human skin, than that of any animal. A clever and also hopeful idea.

The next issue is the moral and ethical point of view of experimenting. The thoughts mentioned below are not proven facts, but important questions if one comes across this issue.

As it is shown in the essay, animals are treated in a very mean way. Taking animal lives like this is almost the same as killing humans which is as all of us know, morally not accepted – at least in most places. Many people tend to act like gods, thinking that they can do whatever they would like to without any consequences. However animals have rights as well: they have the right to live. Therefore it is unforgivabée to torture and then kill living creatures, just because they belong to another species. Especially if it is not needed at all, only out of curiosity and gathering - most of the time completely useless - information. To put it another way, killing animals for nothing is an unnecessary massacre without any sensible purpose, which is definitely inhuman. Both morally and ethically it is obviously unacceptable and not right. 

To summarize briefly what has been discussed so far, the point is clear. All the results show that these methods are only a huge waste of not just money and time, but animal lives. Sometimes the taxpayers pay for it without even knowing about it. Even if in some cases they have a useful result, the loss of animal lives makes it completely unethical and archaic.

It is not needed in our modern age, when everything can be substituted with something.

Also, as it has been mentioned before, none of these results have anything to do with our human bodies, making them unscientific. We definitely should not choose a product or treatment or anything that might be so harmful that they did not even want to try them on humans in the first place.

And as for the last words let me quote Stephen Suomi, who was the one who carried out the baby monkey experiment: “The only way to know definitively whether anti-depressant drugs work  in humans would be to study our species.”

The Myth of Medical Marijuana

The Myth of Medical Marijuana

an argumentative essay

by Enikő Rácz

  The myth of marijuana as a medical treatment has reached a legendary amount of notification in the past few years.  It is time to finally reveal what the fuss is about.

 Debates about medical marijuana has been flourishing for a few decades now and it is not seeming to settle just yet. However controversial this topic may be, I will try to give ground to both of the parties, both to those who are for- and to those who are against it, to see what their argumentations are.

    First of all, on the one hand, medical marijuana is being supported by a big group of people who believe and can scientifically prove that marijuana can ease the pain and make the struggles of  chemotherapy be more endurable for the patients. Marijuana has a painkiller effect, which has been tested in many institutes of healthcare by scientists. Patients who used marijuana during and after their chemotherapy did not experience as much pain as those who refused to do the same.

  On the other hand, however, it is also believed by some people that marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug, not even mentioning the long-term disadvantages it may cause. For example you can relieve your pain, but in the meantime you get used to this effect and you eventually will want more, although your physical pain has already been gone. Addiction is always a serious matter, however, I believe in the power of portions and regulation.

  As for the portions, some say that by the regulations of  portions we can avoid addiction and by that we can only concentrate on the positive effects. Such effect can be noticed in the case of a Parkinson's victim, who is finally able to relax his muscles due to the positive effects of marijuana and does not have to worry about constantly shaking. Or in the case of those patients who are basically living off of the painkillers which the nurses and doctors prescribe for them. I cannot see how those medicines differ from marijuana in means of addiction. Somebody can become and addict of typical medical painkillers as much as marijuana. The most important thing and the most efficient thing is to keep it in portions.

  Nevertheless, marijuana has been tested and scientists have found out that it can actually kill cancer cells, which means it does not only relieve the pain the cancer treatment causes, but also kills the illness itself. If this is not the top of this plant's myth, then I do not know what is.

  In conclusion, medical marijuana still has a lot to go, but hopefully, someday in the near future people will be more acceptable regarding this method of medication and the world will be a better place.

  I personally am supporting the idea of medical marijuana, as well as everything which has even a tiny chance to help people. Although, the mystical case of this plant has not been solved, I am looking forward to see how things are going to change as the perception of people is growing.

Works cited:

(1) ProCon.org. "Medical Marijuana ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 10 Nov. 2016, 10:45 a.m., medicalmarijuana.procon.org/

(2)   How Effective Is Medical Marijuana? Here's A Closer Look At 14 Different Uses By Karen Cicero - http://www.prevention.com/health/14-uses-medical-marijuana

Is national safety more important than privacy?

Is national safety more important than privacy?

With the rise of current problems such as terrorism, the issue with personal privacy has emerged again. In the era of internet and smartphones, information exchange is easier than ever. Today’s people probably use electronical devices in a daily manner to communicate with others or manage businesses. Somehow in minds it stands as a private way of discourse. However, data from our devices are easily accessed by authorities. This means that the seemingly private online data is nearly public and is easily accessible for hackers. Surprisingly, since the beginning of the internet era, serious internet laws have not been made. Nevertheless, the violation of personal data should be illegal and not to be accessed by higher authorities as it is a violation of our privacy.

Back in 2013, in the US, Edward J. Snowden leaked classified documents to the news that revealed the existence of government surveillance programs. This means that the National Security Agency gathers phone logs and data from millions of American people’s devices for a later analysis. Of course this became a scandal. From this point on the world as one doubted their data’s safety.

The main point supporters of national supervision could nominate is that the governments’ main job is to grant safety and welfare to its citizens and that these searches and controls will help prevent attacks and loss of life. However, most of the data collected have no real message or at least no relevant message for the secret agencies. Potential criminals tend to use messaging platforms that are encrypted and cannot be accessed. This leads to the conclusion that most of the data these agencies read are ordinary private conversations, banking account information and personal businesses.

 Conspiracy theory creating is not the purpose of this paper, still people need to take into account the possibility that governments abuse our data. By this mean, they could gather information about each of their citizens, which could lead to trust issues between governments and citizens. What is more, as it was published in The Guardian, in early 2016, the US intelligence chief, James Clapper, has acknowledged for the first time that agencies might use a new generation of smart devices (including household items) to increase their surveillance capabilities.

There are attempts on finding a middle-ground in this problem, yet it is more than certain that this monitoring is not the best way of filtering out the dangerous elements of society. So while the possibility of us getting hacked depends on the authorities, we can make some precautions for our security. The key might be in the way people use the internet, altering our method of using online platforms, for instance, avoiding posting sensitive information online and using encrypting softwares can offer a viable solution for those worrying about their data.

All in all, the ultimate decision is maybe not in our hands and the regimes have the potential to use or abuse the data they are given. However, there are methods for ordinary people to protect their online presence. And last but not least, people must become more aware of their online life, as it has become a part of our everyday life. 

Works cited

1.Greenwald, Glenn; MacAskill, Ewen; Poitras, Laura. “Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations”  The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance Accessed 13 Nov. 2016

2. Ackerman, Spencer; Thielman, Sam. “US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you” The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper Accessed 27 Nov. 2016