Death Of Salesman And Willy Loman Essays - English-language Films

Death Of Salesman And Willy Loman Death of a Salesman, written in 1949 by American playwright Arthur Miller, illustrates the destructive compulsion of a man to attain a success far beyond his reach. This is accomplished through the portrayal of Willy Loman, the play's central character. Willy Loman is a pathetic character because he does not hold any possibility of victory. Unrealistic dreams which are the product of a refusal to honestly acknowledge his abilities deter any triumph that Willy may have the ability to achieve. Throughout the play Willy Loman surrounds himself with an obvious air of insecurity and confusion. His lack of confidence and uncertainty in what he wants are qualities which prevent him from achieving his dream. Willy shows this weakness while observing himself in a mirror. He focuses completely on what he deems as negative qualities in his personality and physical appearance. In talking with his brother he reveals his insecurity by mentioning that he "feels kind of temporary" (pg. 51). Although Willy has chosen to pursue success as a salesman he demonstrates confusion by continually contradicting that choice. Willy resents the advancements, such as the loss of fresh air and fertile land, increased population and, most significantly, the competition which have been created by the very business community he has opted to be a member of. It is impractical to assume that Willy Loman can be victorious in a career that he does not seem comfortable in or completely dedicated to. His attempts make him pathetic because they are at the expense of confidence that he may receive from another field of work. Willy Loman's false pride is another factor that contributes to his pursuit of a prosperity which is unobtainable to him as a salesman. This attribute is apparent in him when his mind journeys back to the day he turned down his brother's offer to battle for riches in the Alaskan timberlands. Willy's most enthusiastic moments in the play come in directing the rebuilding of the front stoop, teaching his sons to polish the car and in talking with Charley of the ceiling he put up in the living-room. These instances make it obvious that his true talents and joys lie in working with his hands. He is unable to go with his brother and put his skills to use because he has given his family the impression that he is greatly excelling in his career. He is unable to leave behind such great success as a salesman for uncertainty in the woods without admitting his true position and suffering the humiliation of his lies. Willy is ready to avoid that embarrassment at the cost of happiness so that his family's praise for him may continue to remain active. Willy's false sense of pride also compels him to repeatedly refuse accepting the job offered to him by Charley, his best friend and neighbor. Although he needs the money, Willy finds himself incapable of working for someone who is the success he himself only pretends to be. It is also that same false pride which brings him to degrade himself by borrowing money from Charley so that he can keep his stature intact with his family. What Willy Loman views as pride is, in reality, his self-deprivation. By ignoring what he is best fitted to do Willy does not allow himself happiness or the opportunity for triumph. This makes him a pathetic character.V Willy Loman cannot be victorious in achieving success because he does not have the aptitude to be a salesman or the capacity to be a good father. His jokes and much too talkative nature demonstrate his inability to do his job productively. His exaggerated claims of past profit and deals made with Howard's father are not able to get him a position in New York because he has long been insignificant to the Wagner Company. He was placed on commission like an inexperienced newcomer to the industry on account of interference in his job productivity: "You didn't crack up again, did you?" (pg. 79). Willy is unable to keep his business obligations. He displays this irresponsibility when he fails to make a sales trip to Boston and, as a result, he is fired. Since his own father was not present throughout his life to act as an example, Willy Loman seeks guidance from his brother, who pays little interest to him or his wife and children, on how he should parent. Willy, in choosing one son over the other, makes his greatest mistake as a father. He ignores Happy,

MLK

MLK There are many important things that shape the delivery of your speech. Among the most important parts of delivery involved are voice production and articulation. Other important parts of delivery include methods, gestures, eye contact, and the clothing that you wear. Martin Luther King Jr. is considered one of the most influential speakers of this century. The delivery and language of King's speeches has earned him this label. In the next paragraph I shall examine King's delivery and why he is considered such a great speaker.If your audience cannot hear you, your speech servers very little purpose. King's most famous speech took place in nineteen sixty three during a March on Washington. I'm sure King was concerned with his voice production and articulation. Without these mechanisms of speech King would have gone unheard of. However, King had no trouble with these mechanisms of speech. I feel that everyone has gestures that are unique and King was no different.Martin Luther King lea ning on a lectern. Deutsch: ...He moved around during his speeches and used his hand to emphasize points throughout his speeches.I cannot decide whether king used the memorization or extemporaneous method. If I was to choose one I would choose the memorization method. During the speeches ofKing we viewed he never losses eye contact with the audience. This is one of the reasons why I choose the memorization method. I also feel King's speeches came straight from his heart. King was a Baptist minister and was without a doubt filled with the spirit of god. I feel King's speeches were influenced by the spirit that lived within his heart. The book states that your appearance should be in harmony with your message. King's speeches were all based on serious spiritual and political issues and a suit and tie were the attire that he...

Soccer Speech or Presentation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Soccer - Speech or Presentation Example It focuses less on the items, and more on the people who play it. Football is a life changer. As Pele, arguably the greatest footballer of all time, said, â€Å"I hope that all young people in the world are inspired by some of the positive lessons I learned in my life about overcoming obstacles, expressing creative flair, taking care of your health, and encouraging teamwork, loyalty and honesty. These are things that have an impact on, and beyond, the football field.† What I am saying today is not a radical new idea. Organizations from around the world are seeing the impact that football has on the children of this world. Football Programs for Kids by KidsHealth.org and the African push for promoting sports under the banner letsplay.org are just a few examples of that. Why football? Because, in football, every person goes down at some time; it is up to him decide to get up and it is up to his teammates to tell him he is worth it – that he has to get up! This is what hap pens to everyone in life too. You fall. You have to get up. Some people don’t get up at all. Some people get up slow. Some people get back up instantly. It is all about will. And it is all about whether someone can inspire you to get up or not. That is what football teaches you – to help others, to focus on what you need to do to get back up yourself, to train hard and play harder.

Relationship among Religion, Biology, and Science Essay

Relationship among Religion, Biology, and Science - Essay Example The paper is going to handle three main religions common in the world mainly Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Christianity Different geographical regions have diverse cultures and beliefs which are characterized as conflicting, in harmony or even with little interaction. Religion and science explain the natural laws and the universe using different methodologies. Science is mainly based on empiricism, reasoning, and evidence. Empiricism is a philosophical view that knowledge is and should always be based on experience. Empiricism is taken to be a fundamental starting point of science inclusive of the invention in religion. Scientific empiricism has the assumption that the scientists are independent, impartial, and completely unrelated to the phenomena under investigation. In contrast, religion is based on sacredness, revelation, and faith. Religion is argued to support its facts by use of supernatural powers that are hard to investigate in that they are not part of nature. Religious investigators have difficulties in their investigations in that during the research; they defend their religion instead of explaining the problem under study. In the United States, acceptance of the scientific facts such as natural selection especially in the line of human beings has been influenced by religion so much showing that religion and sciences are in a fight. However, the National Academy of Sciences has documented some facts that proofs of evolution are in accordance and compatible with some religious groups (NAS, 2008). According to Archbishop Habgood John, science is descriptive while religion is prescriptive. Schilling and Coulson claimed that religion and science are related so much in that both revolve around a three-fold structure of experience, theoretical interpretation, and finally the practical application of the new idea. Coulson continued to argue that the fields of science just like religion brings it facts by creative imagination but not from mere figures (Brandt-Rauf, 2006).        

The book of Eli argument Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The book of Eli argument - Research Paper Example It had a lot of in depth detail about the way it played out its characters into the movie. The movie had a lot of enigmatic scenes and the storyline was beautifully depicted and played out. Denzel Washington plays the role of a warrior in the movie He depicts this role to utter perfection where every scene has been carved out of supreme control and smoothness so as to reflect the true nature of the given situation. Denzel Washington spends his time travelling in the movie. He is travelling across an eerie landscape in the movie. He does this by maintaining huge amounts of concentration and dedication to work things out for him. The brown, dusty environs look familiar and not, dotted with abandoned cars and the occasional corpse. Eli feels at home when he is travelling around the place. He feels that he is a state of Trans. When Eli pauses, the camera settles near his feet, and the sky opens above him like a sheltering hand. With his green jacket and unsmiling mouth, he looks like a v eteran of an unknown war, a soldier of misfortune — though, given the fog of religiosity that hangs over the movie, he might be an avenging angel. He is a master of his own destiny in the movie. He has taken the road which is tougher to ride on, and still he carried on so amazingly that it looked as if he was provided the brief to do the act. . The main script of the movie was based on the writings of Gary Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have played an excellent role in converting the same into a storyline that has been acted out very professionally and promisingly. On its opening weekend, the movie ranked number 2 after avatar which is a very big achievement considering there were other box office releases that weekend as well. What made the movie so intact and tight was the sense of direction that had been placed emphasis upon. The Hughes Brothers have been successful in inserting fresh aspects and outlooks into the way most people view the post apocalyptic era of America to day, in the modern day and age. The direction has helped to provide a different spin on the movie and had received positive reviews by critics worldwide. The movie helped to grip the attention of the audience and Washington played his role to the best of his abilities, being one of the main reasons that the movie was so widely accepted and gained popularity. There are many scenes full of suspense which astonish the audience to a great extent and leave them longing for more. In conclusion, the Book of Eli received a vast amount of positive criticism from far and wide mostly because of the fresh spin that its directors placed on the style and way that the movie was narrated as well as the acting roles played by actors like Gary Oldman and Denzel Washington. Even though many movie goers argued that the movie did not satisfy their desire for action, most derived the fact that this movie provided for an excellent dose of excitement and chills which left the people wanting even more. With excellent shooting done with high end digital cameras, the audience found it extremely comfortable to sit through the various effects and watch every moment of the movie and absorb it within so as to understand the kind of situation the

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

Relative Dating Essay -- essays research papers fc

The Fundamental Principles of Relative DatingRelative dating involves placing events in their proper chronological sequence, that is, in the order of their occurrence (Dutch 1998). This type of dating tells us which geologic event happened first, but does not give an exact date to which something happened. There are several different methods that are used in relative dating. These are the fundamental methods that are used in the field by geologists' and earth scientists to gather information about the relative age of rock bodies and other cool geologic stuff. These principles are the principle of superposition, the principle of original horizontality, the principle of cross-cutting relationships, and the principle of inclusions.The principle of superposition is defined as in the environment of an undisturbed layer of sedimentary rocks; the layers on the bottom are older than the layers towards the top. The pictures I have taken show very good examples of this. By using the principle of superposition we can know that the layers toward the bottom are older than the layers toward the top. The rock body shown in the pictures attached, started out as one layer, as millions and millions of years passed more layers of sedimentary rock were placed on top of each other one after another, each layer was deposited at a later time than the one before it. The youngest layer is on the top, and the oldest layer is on the bottom. This principle was founded by the Danish anatomist Nicolas ...

Holden Caulfield Is an Island Essay

John Donne’s quote, ‘No man is an island’ connects quite directly to Holden Caulfield in ‘The Catcher in the Rye. ’ Holden’s character is very relative to themes such as isolation, loneliness and non-conformity. Holden has a very distinct character; he has many features, which would describe him as quite a lonely, cynical young man. It is evident that a past of his has had such an effect on him that the adolescence he has become quite a rocky journey for him; the death of his brother Allie, and the suicide of one of his schoolmates included. How is Holden Caulfield an island? Well, the quote itself – ‘No man is an island’ – can be interpreted that no man will thrive in isolation, such as an island. Holden has isolated himself from the conforming ways of society. This explains why he finds it so hard to be close to people, and why people find it so hard to get close to him; because he is so different. Holden’s character can be described as one that is flying off the rails. Some events throughout the novel regarding alcohol and drugs, relationships and Holden’s whereabouts show that he is simply trying to be something he isn’t. Holden Caulfield is an island, throughout the novel, a word to describe him best would be ‘alone. ’ Those who attempt to help him, guide him and be there for him, such as Spencer and Mr. Antolini, generally fail as Holden makes a quick escape from their guiding hands. In some ways, Holden can be seen as a hero. It is much harder to go against the grain alone, than to follow along in the footsteps of others. Holden can be understood as a leader, rather than a follower. Although his purpose is not quite evident, his journey is still worth so much. Holden’s personality includes features, which define him as a very judgmental person. He often uses the term ‘phoney’ to describe people who aren’t true to themselves and who according to him, squeezing into a certain cut out. Holden is very set in his ways, and will generally not take on the opinion of anyone else, and will stick to his own very closely. An example of Holden preferring to be alone is when he informs his sister that he will be leaving home. He organizes a meeting with her before he leaves. She arrives with her belongings and asks to go with him. It is not that Holden loses his temper, and refuses to take her along. After Holden leaves Pencey Prep at the beginning of the novel, he makes the decision to find his way around Manhattan alone, with out telling his parents; for a few days before he is due back home. To most sixteen year old teenagers, to make this decision would be a big move, but to Holden, a stunt like this doesn’t concern him. This just shows how far he goes to prove himself to be an individual, who can take care of himself, Holden feels he doesn’t need anyone but himself, as he is left alone by the end of the story. Throughout the novel, is it clear that the story is about Holden’s journey, and Holden Caulfield being an island. The events and occurrences that happen to Holden along the way prove this statement to be true. Holden has a very strong character, that of which he remains tough; he does his own thing, in his own way; without the need for approval from anyone. Holden Caulfield has isolated himself from the conforming ways of society. Therefore, Holden Caulfield is an Island.

Mercury Athletic Footwear Essay

1. Active Gear is a relatively small athletic and casual footwear company $470.3 million of revenue and $60.4 million of EBIT compared to typical competitors that sold well over a $1.0 billion annually Company executives felt its small size was becoming more of a disadvantage due to consolidation among Chinese contract manufacturers. Specialty athletic footwear that evolved from high performance to athletic fashion wear with a â€Å"classic† appeal. Casual/recreational footwear for walking, hiking, boating, etc.. Affluent urban & suburbanites in the 25-45 age range (i.e. â€Å"Yuppies†). Brands are associated with upwardly mobile lifestyle. Department & specialty stores – no big box retailers. 2. Company strengths: By focusing on a portfolio of classic brands, Active Gear has been able to lengthen its product lifecycle. In turn, this has led to less operating volatility and better supply chain management as well as lower DSI 3. Company weaknesses: By avoiding the chase for the latest fashion trend and avoiding big box retailers, the company has had very low growth 4. Mercury was a subsidiary of a large apparel company As a result of a strategic realignment, the division was considered to be non-core. 2006 revenue and EBITDA were $431.1 million and $51.8 million respectively Under the egis of WCF, Mercury’s performance was mixed. WCF was able to expand sales of footwear, but was never able to establish the hoped for apparel line 5. Products, Customers and Distribution: Men’s and women’s athletic and casual footwear. Most products were priced in the mid-range. More contemporary fashion orientation Typical customers were in the 15-25 age range. Primarily associated with X-games enthusiasts and youth culture Products were sold primarily through a wide range of retail, department, and specialty stores – including discount retailers 6. Company strengths: Established brand and identity within a well-defined niche market that seems to be growing. Strong top-line growth resulting from inroads with major  retailers. Products were less complex; and therefore, cheaper to produce 7. Company weaknesses: Increased sales came as a result of pricing concessions to large retailers. Proliferation of brands led to decreased operating efficiency and a longer DSI. Women’s casual footwear was a disaster Central Question: What Are the Likely Rationales for a Combination of Active Gear and Mercury? How do the acquirer and target fit together? What are the potential sources of value? How would any potential sources of value be realized? Potential sources of value creation: Operating synergies coming from economies of scale with respect to contract manufacturers Perhaps some economies of scope with respect to distribution – extending the distribution network Possible combination of the women’s casual lines Counter arguments to value creation: Poor strategic fit – Mercury’s focus is on a totally different market demographic Likewise, Mercury’s niche maybe significantly more prone to fashion fads Continued growth of extreme sports category may make Mercury’s business vulnerable to the large athletic shoe companies Firm Value & Cash Flows: 1. As a starting point, let’s start with a basic valuation paradigm Note that the sole determinant of value is the generation of cash flow Further the only relevant factors are the amounts, timing and risks of the cash flows FCF is assumed to be the mean of an a random distribution Determination of FCF To begin, the preceding equation led to a value of the entire enterprise, meaning V = D + E Thus, we are interested in what the total business is worth irrespective of who gets the cash or how it’s financed In turn, this means we are interested in the un-levered FCF Un-Levered FCF = EBIT(1-t) + Depr’ – ∆WC – Cap-x Determination of FCF In case Exhibit 6, Liedtke provides a set of projections for each of the operating segments – Thus, Multiplying EBIT by (1-t) yields the first term in the FCF equation Question: Are taxes being overstated? It is true that interest expense creates a tax shield However, the value of the tax shield is acknowledged in the WACC or in a separate calculation when using APV

Prison makes bad people worse Essays

Prison makes bad people worse Essays Prison makes bad people worse Essay Prison makes bad people worse Essay In the UK the prisons have a maximum capacity of 80,000 inmates. At the end of April 2004 the number of people serving custodial sentences rose to above 82,000. The prisons in the UK are currently over capacity. Where are the extra 2000 inmates if there is no room for them? (Johnson 2004) For the purpose of this essay the statement that prison makes bad people worse is assumes to mean that serving a custodial sentence increases the likelihood of an offender re-offending. Before an attempt is made to examine the issue in questions a brief history of the prison system will be explored in an attempt to understand how prison has come to be the most serious method of punishment in the UK today. Prisons as mere places of confinement have existed for many years. Prisons as we know them today-places to which offenders are sent to receive punishment, there also to be worked on and changed-are a feature of modernity, a product of the industrial age. Since the abolition of the death penalty in 1965 imprisonment has been the most serious penalty the courts can impose in Britain. The punishment of imprisonment for sentenced prisoners might be both loss of liberty and harsh living conditions in the name of less eligibility or deterrence (Morgan, R 1997). Prior to the nineteenth century punishment for criminals was very different. The focus of punishment in these historic times was the body. Punishments were physical in nature with execution and torture being combined with public humiliation. Within just a few decades the brutal torture and public humiliations stopped. The body was no longer the major target for penal repression. Punishment ceased to be centred on torture as a technique of pain; it assumed as its principle object loss of wealth or rights. While this type of punishment apparently now focuses on the soul rather than the body it could be argued in many ways that imprisonment as a punishment does concern the body in a more indirect manner by rationing of food, sexual deprivation and solitary confinement . This trace of torture is enveloped increasingly, by the non-corporal nature of todays penal system (Foucault 1977). There are different arguments for the reason behind this shift from punishment in a physical manner to imprisonment. An orthodox approach argued that the reason for this was due to humanitarianism a (Portsmouth University 2003). nd reform, a more humane and civilized alternative to the brutality of earlier years Foucault (1977) argued that this was not the case; he believed that the reason for the changes was the defining of a new age, better punishment by operating not on bodies or fear but on the reform of offenders into the disciplined subject. Regardless of Foucaults argument the one factor that underpins punishment in the UK today is Human Rights. The 1998 Human Rights Act sets out a number of conventions which all people have a right to. The Prisons Inspectorate has developed the concept of a Healthy Prison which is based on the World Health Organisations four tests of what constitutes a healthy custodial environment which is based upon international human rights principles. These four tests are: that prisoners are held in safety; that they are treated with respect and dignity as human beings; that they are able to engage in purposeful activity; and that they are prepared for resettlement (Owers, A 2003). Punishment needs justification because it is something which is harmful, painful or unpleasant to the recipient. Prison causes physical discomfort, psychological pain, indignity and general unhappiness along with a number of social disadvantages which lead to offenders becoming socially excluded. There are a number of justifications or theories for punishment. Reductivism justifies punishment on the grounds that it helps to reduce the incidence of crime. It is claimed by supporters of this theory that if punishment is inflicted the incidence of crime will be less then if no punishment were imposed (Cavadino Dignan 1997) These arguments are supported by utilitarianism; a moral theory founded by Jeremy Bentham which stated that the greatest good was defined by the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Society as a whole is given greater weight than the individual (Abercrombie, Hill Turner 1988). Many theories of punishment come under the heading of Reductivism and are assumed to reduce the levels of crime. Deterrence is the idea that crime is reduced because of peoples fear of the punishment they may receive if they offend. Deterrence is divided into two categories, individual deterrence where an individual commits a crime and finds the punishment so unpleasant that the offence is not repeated fro the fear of the same happening again. General deterrence is when the punishment of a crime does not deter the offender who committed it but the crime is meant to put others off from committing the same crime. While it may seem common sense that this would be effective in reality this is not the case. Research has shown that punishment has other effects which out weigh any deterrence. The catching and imprisoning of offenders leads to them being labelled as criminals and this labelling process makes it difficult for them live law abiding lives. Their self image can change from a law abiding one to that of a deviant and this impacts on their behaviour (Cavadino Dignan 1997). It could be said with this evidence in mind that prison makes people worse. Rehabilitation theory is based on the notion that punishment can take a form which will improve an individuals character and behaviour and reduce the likelihood of them re-offending. The main aim of the probation service is the rehabilitation of offenders and the central aim of the prison system is the treatment and training of offenders (Portsmouth University 2003). One of prisons main priorities to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders is the provision of accredited offending behaviour programmes for prisoners which are based on evidence-based practice. Home Office research found no evidence between re-conviction rates for prisoners who had participated in programmes. The study suggested that there has been a shift in programme targeting to low risk offenders who are not suitable for the cognitive-behavioural approaches used. A report by the Social Exclusion Unit demonstrates that any positive effects that come from the offending programmes are far outweighed by the damage that the overall prison experience inflicts (Solomon, E, 2003). Another important point to note about rehabilitation in prison is that offenders who are serving short sentences do not get access to these programmes and it is these offenders who are more likely to get caught in the revolving door of the Criminal Justice System. This evidence does not directly indicate that prison makes bad people worse but neither does it demonstrate that prison can reform bad people. The theory of incapacitation does not centre on the idea that changing the behaviour of the offender will reduce crime but the notion of public protection. Whilst the offender is incarcerated he or she will not be able to commit further crime and this in turn will reduce crime. Along with this is the notion that the members of the public will feel safer knowing that they will not fall victim to a perpetrator who is locked up (Ainsworth 2000). James Q Wilson (1975) stated that a twenty percent reduction in street robbery could be achieved by locking up offenders for longer (Cavadino Dignan 1997). In reality this would result in a massive increase in prison numbers which due to the fact that prisons are already full would be impossible. With retribution theory punishment is an attempt by the victim and society to redress the balance between offenders and offended by seeing that the perpetrator is punished and suffers accordingly. This knowledge that the culprit is suffering may make victims feel that they have had their pound of flesh (Ainsworth 2000). Retribution theory is the opposite of reductionism. Where reductionism looks forward at the effects of punishment retribution looks back at the offence and believes that in some way two wrongs will make a right. In many cases retribution and reductionism are combined in a compromise situation and punishment is justified if it is both deserved by the offender and likely to act as a deterrent (Cavadino Dignan 1997). The justifications for punishment are wide and there are many more than are noted here. Regardless of the justification for sending a person to prison the important factor to be considered is the impact that a custodial sentence has on an individual prisoner. When talking about deterrence as a justification for prison, labelling theory was explored as a possibility for making prisoners more likely to re-offend due to them trying to fit into a role. Expanding this further is the idea of conformity, where an individual conforms to social rules or assumes a role because it is the norm. Social roles are built on a polarity such as powerful and powerless. These kinds of roles exist in the prison setting with the inmates being powerless and the prison officers powerful. An important question that needs to be examined is how easy it is for people to assume a role. A key study was carried out in 1973 by Psychologist Zimbardo which investigated this. Volunteers were recruited to take part in a two week study on prison life. 25 men took part in the study; each person was assigned the role of either prisoner or guard. These roles were assigned by the toss of a coin so that each participant had an equal chance of being prisoner or guard. The mock prison was in the basement of Stanford University. The results of the study were shocking. The prisoners were increasingly passive and dependant as the days went by and the guards became increasingly aggressive. One prisoner had to be release just 36 hours after the study began because of uncontrollable crying and fits of rage along with disorganised thinking and severe depression. Three more prisoners were released on successive days with similar symptoms. A fifth prisoner was released when he developed a rash over his whole body following his parole being rejected. The experiment, which was meant to run for two weeks, had to be stopped after 6 days because of the pathological reactions of the prisoners who had originally been selected for their normality. Throughout the experiment social power was the major dimension. All the guards at some point behaved in abusive, authoritarian way and appeared to enjoy the power and control (Gross 1996). Zimbardo argued that the abnormal behaviour demonstrated is best viewed as a product of transactions within an environment that supports such behaviour. The participants were labelled and put in a situation where these labels became valid and elicit pathological behaviour (Portsmouth University 2003). The main concern with the results of the Zimbardo experiment is the implications that it has for the prison system. Zimbardo believes that the current prison system is guaranteed to generate severe enough pathological reactions is prisoners and guards to debase their humanity, lower their feelings of self-worth and make it difficult for them to be part of society outside of prison (Portsmouth University 2003). This evidence is a clear demonstration of how labelling and conformity theories are evidence for prison making bad people worse. The inmates assume the role expected of them and find it difficult to leave this role when they are released. The work of Zimbardo leads neatly to a sociological idea of a prison subculture or a inmate code. This theory is demonstrated throughout prisons regardless of the justification for punishment. Prison is a society within a society with distinctive structure, aims, values and practices separate from the wider society. The inmate code is something which all prisoners adhere to. The is code includes not informing on other prisoners, not fraternising with staff, a need to be tough and resist exploitation and a need to maintain ones position in the prison pecking order. Violations of these roles are often controlled via bullying (Ireland 2002). This prisonisation process does not help with rehabilitation but acts as a breeding ground which provides reinforcement for criminal behaviour. The inmates become socialized into the way of life which demands opposition to authority and the formal system represented by the prison staff. Any attempts at reform are neutralized by this. According to Sykes (1958) this inmate code is developed to help inmates cope with the pain and deprivation of imprisonment. There is much evidence about the sociology of prison and about the current penal crisis which concerns overcrowding as one of the main factors. The fact of the matter is that prison has a poor record in reducing re-offending 59% of prisoners are reconvicted within 2 years of release. The reconviction rate for male young adults (under 21) over the same period is 74%. For prisoners who are sentenced for burglary, one of the most common offences, the reconviction rate is 75%. It has been concluded by research from the Social Exclusion Unit that re-offending by ex-prisoners costs society at least i 11 billion each year. Ex -prisoners are responsible for approximately one in five recorded crimes (Solomon, E, 2003). This is not direct evidence to suggest that the reason these people have re-offended is because they have served a custodial sentence which has made them worse. The evidence merely raises questions about the use of prison as a punishment for some offences. Prison is the right place for many criminals but the wrong place for others. Those convicted of violent crimes should be given custodial sentences. Prison has an important role to play in protecting the public from those who cause harm and punishing crimes that society takes most seriously. It is also right that there are many offenders who should not be taken into custody when they could be dealt with appropriately in the community. Community penalties allow offender to repay their debt to society rather than warehousing them in prison.