Euthanasia is the Right to Kill
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley shows an example of the widely debated topic of doctor-assisted deaths, or euthanasia. Formerly called “mercy killing,” euthanasia means making someone die rather than allowing them to die naturally. In Huxley’s novel the futuristic “World-State” uses euthanasia for everyone who is no longer “useful to society.” “Death with dignity,” has become a catch phrase used by euthanasia activists, but there’s nothing dignified about killing someone. Being gassed to death with carbon monoxide, suffocated with a plastic bag, and injected with lethal poison are common inhuman ways “doctors” have helped their patients to die. Although people who are terminally ill should not be forced to stay alive nor to suffer, the alternative, euthanasia, is against the law, for it pressures people emotionally and psychologically into death, and it is not a reliever of pain.
Suicide has been legalized in the United States, and some think it’s only fair to do the same with euthanasia. Since suicide has been made legal, there are more suicides everyday than homicides, but suicide and euthanasia are quite different and should not be confused with each other. Suicide is a tragic event dealing with one person acting by him or her self, but euthanasia is not about a private act. It is one person doing something that directly kills another. If euthanasia was legalized it would only lead to abuse and erosion of health care for the most vulnerable people.
Some activists say euthanasia would only be at a patient’s request and no one would be forced into dying. Although physical force is highly unlikely, emotional and psychological pressure could overpower someone feeling depressed or dependent on people. Much like in Brave New World when John, “the savage” kills himself because could not accept the life-style that the “super-society” wanted to impose on him. If the choice of euthanasia became available as well as a decision to receive good health care, many people would feel guilty for not choosing death. Too often many people feel like a burden to others especially because of financial situations. Proper health care is an expensive cost of living and slowly more states are cutting back on health care coverage for poor state residents. This again may lead some to believing they are a burden to others and again may choose death out of guilt. Even the smallest gesture could create a gentle nudge into the grave.
Throughout Jackson's two terms as President, Jackson used his power unjustly. As a man from the Frontier State of Tennessee and a leader in the Indian wars, Jackson loathed the Native Americans. Keeping with consistency, Jackson found a way to use his power incorrectly to eliminate the Native Americans. In May 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act. This act required all tribes east of the Mississippi River to leave their lands and travel to reservations in the Oklahoma Territory on the Great Plains. This was done because of the pressure of white settlers who wanted to take over the lands on which the Indians had lived. The white settlers were already emigrating to the Union, or America. The East Coast was burdened with new settlers and becoming vastly populated. President Andrew Jackson and the government had to find a way to move people to the West to make room. In 1830, a new state law said that the Cherokees would be under the jurisdiction of state rather than federal law. This meant that the Indians now had little, if any, protection against the white settlers that desired their land. However, when the Cherokees brought their case to the Supreme Court, they were told that they could not sue on the basis that they were not a foreign nation. In 1832, though, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokees were a "domestic dependent nation," and therefore, eligible to receive federal protection against the state. However, Jackson essentially overruled the decision. By this, Jackson implied that he had more power than anyone else did and he could enforce the bill himself. This is yet another way in which Jackson abused his presidential power in order to produce a favorable result that complied with his own beliefs. The Indian Removal Act forced all Indians tribes be moved west of the Mississippi River. The Choctaw was the first tribe to leave from the southeast.
Under the Jackson Administration, the changes made shaped national Indian policy. Morally, Andrew Jackson dismissed prior ideas that natives would gradually assimilate into white culture, and believed that removing Indians from their homes was the best answer for both the natives and Americans. Politically, before Jackson treaties were in place that protected natives until he changed those policies, and broke those treaties, violating the United States Constitution. Under Jackson’s changes, the United States effectively gained an enormous amount of land. The removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s changed the national policy in place when Jackson became President as evidenced by the moral, political, constitutional, and practical concerns of the National Indian Policy.
The article “Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy: A Reassessment” for this assignment, written by F. P. Prucha, shows that even though most people believe that our seventh president, Andrew Jackson, was an Indian hater whose presidency was defined by an anti-Indian doctrine which allowed the “trail of tears”, a mass deportation of the Florida Indians to the West of the Mississippi River, Jackson did not bear personal hatred against Native Americans. The author claims that Jackson as a military man, he had a dominant goal in the decades before he became President to preserve the security and wellbeing of the United States and its Indian and white inhabitants. Jackson was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the Indians and for their civilization
Picture being kicked out of your home that you grew up in and wanted to raise your children in, how would you feel? Imagine the fury and the sadness that would be running through your veins. This is how the Native Americans felt in 1830 when Andrew Jackson came up with the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act and the events leading up to it is a direct violation of the constitution. It is unconstitutional because the Natives had to convert their way of life to “stay” on their own land and then forced them off their tribal land. Jackson was a power hungry man who believed that anything he said everyone had to abide by, especially the Indian Removal Act.
When we look back into history, we are now able to fully comprehend the atrocities the Indians faced at the hands of the historic general and President, Andrew Jackson. It can be seen as one of the most shameful and unjust series of political actions taken by an American government. However, as an American living almost 200 years later, it is crucial to look at the motives possessed by Andrew Jackson, and ask whether he fully comprehended the repercussions of his actions or if is was simply ignorant to what he was subjection the natives to. We must also consider weather he truly had the countries best interest in mind, or his own.
The removal of the Native Americans was an egocentric move on Jackson’s part. Jackson was only able to see how our removal would benefit the government but was not concerned at all about our values and culture. “It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Indians” (91). This statement, included in the State of the Union Address, exhibits how Jackson was quick to place blame on the Indians. He was basically saying that if there were any disputes between the general and state governments, it would be because of the Indian’s choice to not leave the land. Jackson was attempting to hold the Indians accountable for a matter that they had no say in. It is evident that Jackson could have are less about the Indian’s home land, where we were birthed and raised our kids. It is clear that the sentimental value of the land did not concern Jackson at all. Jackson felt that he offered us an equitable exchange, but his family was not the one being forcefully removed from their birthland to go to an unfamiliar land. “What good m...
Perhaps the worst aspect of Jackson 's administration was his removal and treatment of the natives. Specifically, Andrew Jackson forced the resettlement of several native american tribes against the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Indian Removal Act drove thousands of natives off their tribal lands and forced them west to new reservations. Then again, there are those who defend Jackson 's decision stating that Indian removal was necessary for the advancement of the United States. However, the cost and way of removing the natives was brutal and cruel. The opposition fails to recognize the fact that Jackson’s removal act had promised the natives payment, food, and protection for their cooperation but Jackson fails to deliver any of these promises. Furthermore, in “Indian removal,” an article from the Public-Broadcasting Service, a description of the removal of the Cherokee nation is given. The article analyses the effect of the Indian Removal Act, which was approved by Jackson, on various native tribes. “The Cherokee, on the other hand, were tricked with an illegitimate treaty. In 1833, a small faction agreed to sign a removal agreement: the Treaty of New Echota. The leaders of this group were not the recognized leaders of the Cherokee nation, and over 15,000 Cherokees -- led by Chief John Ross -- signed a petition in protest. The Supreme Court ignored their demands and ratified the treaty in 1836. The Cherokee were given two years to migrate voluntarily, at the end of which time they would be forcibly removed. By 1838 only 2,000 had migrated; 16,000 remained on their land. The U.S. government sent in 7,000 troops, who forced the Cherokees into stockades at bayonet point. They were not allowed time to gather their belongings, and as they left, whites looted their homes. Then began the march known as the Trail of Tears, in which 4,000 Cherokee
During 1829 to 1838, otherwise known as the Jacksonian Era, Andrew Jackson leaded the country with his revolutionary presidency. Jackson gained the support of many Americans by his way of persuading others, while also occasionally attempting to please the people. He was capable of establishing the Indian Removal Act by leading Americans to believe his words, while taking their concerns. Based on the support provided, we can conclude Andrew Jackson’s implementation of the Indian Removal Act in 1830 demonstrates a teleological, utilitarianism ethic. Even though Jackson’s actions may be unethical, they can be justified with this mindset.
Namely, he desired to play a role in the nation’s affairs (“Jackson”). One way he participated in the nation’s affairs was by promoting the Indian Removal Act. Jackson expressed that the Natives were “savages” and that they should be filled with “gratitude and joy” to be moved to the west,(“President”). He should have kept in mind that the Natives, who were peaceful people, would be forcibly removed from their habitats and endure an arduous journey to their new land. Jackson’s decisions were rash and impatient. If he instead had made a better decision, many lives may have not been lost in
Cave, Alfred A. "Abuse of Power:andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830." Jacksonian Democracy and the Historians. Gainesville: U of Florida, 1964. N. pag. Print.
The cultural connotations of euthanasia involve a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the person being euthanized. Many associate the term with phrases like “mercy killing” implying that it is for the benefit of the subject and not to their detriment, furthermore this phrase suggests that the act of euthanasia itself is an act of charity. In her paper Euthanasia Phillipa Foot sets out to discuss the major philosophical implications associated with the act of euthanasia and whether or not they can be morally justified in certain circumstances, and goes on to discuss the tremendous societal impact of a fully legalized and widely accepted practice of euthanasia. She first begins by addressing the commonly held definition of euthanasia,
The Indian Removal Act in the short term shaped the Natives culture and society very notably. The Indian Removal Act caused the destruction of Native American tribes, and lead to a loss of tradition and culture. However, it did allow for the Americans to gain the land needed to build their growing country and meet their economic desires. Desires that President Andrew Jackson had pushed for at Congress in his first inaugural speech, and had made an important policy for his presidency, as he viewed the results as beneficial, to “not only the states immediately concerned, but to the harmony of the union”. The harmony of the union was perceived to be gained at the loss of Native culture, as Jackson represented himself as the man of the people,
"Andrew Jackson" Andrew Jackson's Case for the Removal of Indians. Online. America Online. 20 March 2001.
Suicide is a taboo subject for many people to even speak of in the United States (Suicide, Euthanasia, and Assisted Suicide). Assisted suicide or euthanasia is a very controversial medical and ethical issue topic in many contemporary states today as well. Suicide is no longer against the law in the United States but it is forbidden in 44 of the 52 states. (Lee and Stingl). Euthanasia allows terminally ill patients to request assistance to end their lives and to prevent further suffering as well as any pain (Suicide, Euthanasia, and Assisted Suicide). Euthanasia can help individuals with hopeless, incurable illnesses. Euthanasia although, could possibly make it easier for others with treatable diseases such as depression to commit suicide. Supporters of assisted suicide claim it is an individual right to be able to determine a person’s destiny (Assisted Suicide). Assisted suicide is believed by many people to be barbarous and immoral but is also seen as a
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan. First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands. In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...