1. Should euthanasia be legalized? Discuss with specific reference

Nowadays, there are more and more people choose euthanasia as a method to give up their life. However, if euthanasia is over abused, there are some serious consequence society have to face. The main arguments against legalizing Euthanasia are morality issues and society issues.

Euthanasia is against the cultural activity in almost Asia countries. In Asia area, there is not any moral there where the family members allow their love ones such as parents, grandparent to take euthanasia. Asian people believe that a son or daughter must to have a responsibility to provide a full care to their parent as well as their grandparents. If there are some thing wrong happen to them, the son or the daughter has to answer for all the relatives. From this incident, if people take action on euthanasia, they will leave all troubles to those they love. People who continue living have to face the paint and try very hard to forget and move on. In the introduction of the book named “Euthanasia: The Moral Issues “, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum , it states that “it seems that universal moral principles are merely abstractions having little to do with the agony of the dying. But of course we do not see best when our eyes are filled with tears.”

Euthanasia also weaken the society in term of medicine development and people belief. People choose euthanasia because they know clearly about their sickness through their doctor. This action will turn to regret and anger if the diagnosis of the doctor is wrong. In addition, doctors are not support to recommend people to end their life. Their job is helping them to secure their sickness. Senator and former Vice Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman said doctors need to learn more about pain control and should be protected from prosecution "if they prescribe pain killers that may increase the possibility of death so long as their specific intention was not to end life." "Doctors should do everything they can to reduce pain, but not to administer drugs to end life, I think we go over a line then." ... Joseph Lieberman (From a March 19, 2001 article in the Post-Intelligencer Washington Bureau. "http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/suicides19.shtml" ). Even doctor advice their patient to end their life, so who is the one can help them. It makes people to believe that local medicine is not strong and people will look for medicine from other country. Deliberately or accidentally, euthanasia make country loose their face with others countries in term of medicine development and loose in its economic when its citizen look for outside treatment. Moreover, if voluntary euthanasia will be allowed, then surely it will lead to consequently allowing involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia also. "Those who promote this last, fatal escape as a "right" should remember that such a "right" may quickly become an expectation and, finally, even a "duty" to die. We fear eventually some individuals and families will be forced to put financial concerns above the needs of loved ones." ... Statement against assisted suicide by members of Michigan's Religious Leaders Forum, a group of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders (5/7/98). People choose euthanasia because it is the only solution they can do due to financial problem, in fact that they do not want to do so. The statistic show that there is 37% patient choose euthanasia because they do not want their relative have to be so stressful about their sickness. It proves that the death is not their decision, they will continue living if they are able to afford the hospital fee.

If Euthanasia is legalized, some people will use this one as the screens to hide their weakness. Of course the government does not want to see their citizen to give up their life so easily. Hence, Euthanasia should not be legalized.

1. Should capital punishment be abolished? Discuss

In many countries today, the death sentence has been abolished from law. However, dose this action help whether to protect the principle human right or to increase the crime rate in country due to sobbing law? Some politicians think that the capital punishment should carry out in term of deterrence and justice maintenance.

Death sentence help people learn from example so that they will not do it. There are many countries apply this capital punishment in their law in order to deterrent their people from doing crime. Statistics has shown that Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 (CapitalPunishmentuk.org. n.d.) From this example, it tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. The hardness of prison life is not strong enough to make people feel scare of doing the same crime. In Britain (2010), there have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder. Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65 prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further crime. People really do not learn a lesson if they do not have a painful lesson or see their “friend’s” consequence.

Capital punishment also helps to show the fairness of principle of human right in society. People have the right to live and to do the things which useful for the society. However, people do not have authority to take away the other lives because of whatever reason. They have to take their responsibility of what they have done. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister UK 1979 -1990 states that “Personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that that death penalty should be used only very rarely, but I believe that no-one should go out certain that no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty”. In addition, the criminal should be erased from the society because they are the one who danger the human right stability. If the capital punishment is abolished, all the murders will be jailed in the prison. There are less than 43% of the prisoners who do not do the same crime when they release to the normal life. It is extremely dangerous to the innocent people. Saqib Ali, Democrat State Delegate, Maryland, 2006 to date states that “Capital Punishment is state sponsored murder and then any lesser punishment is a state sponsored murder of Justice…. It is Justice, not Laws that cures the society. And Capital Punishment is the only Justice that suits a murderer”. Moreover, almost developed countries such as USA, together with China and Japan which put principle of human right at the high level still retain the capital punishment for certain crimes. It shows that stating the death to the murderer does not against the human right. This action plays important role in making sure stability of human right.

Therefore, capital punishment should not be abolished. The society will be in chaos if there is not a strict punishment which people can not learn a lesson from or the principle of human right is not fully protected from