A Lesson Before Dying Essays - A Lesson Before Dying,

A Lesson Before Dying In A Lesson Before Dying, Mr. Grant Wiggins' life crises were the center of the story. Although he was supposed to make Jefferson into a man, he himself became more of one as a result. Not to say that Jefferson was not in any way transformed from the "hog" he was into an actual man, but I believe this story was really written about Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins improved as a person greatly in this book, and that helped his relationships with other people for the most part. At the start of the book, he more or less hated Jefferson, but after a while he became his friend and probably the only person Jefferson felt he could trust. The turning point in their relationship was the one visit in which Jefferson told Mr. Wiggins that he wanted a gallon of ice cream, and that he never had enough ice cream in his whole life. At that point Jefferson confided something in Mr. Wiggins, something that I didn't see Jefferson doing often at all in this book. "I saw a slight smile come to his face, and it was not a bitter smile. Not bitter at all"; this is the first instance in which Jefferson breaks his somber barrier and shows emotions. At that point he became a man, not a hog. As far as the story tells, he never showed any sort of emotion before the shooting or after up until that point. A hog can't show emotions, but a man can. There is the epiphany of the story, where Mr. Wiggins realizes that the purpose of life is to help make the world a better place, and at that time he no longer minds visiting Jefferson and begins becoming his friend. Mr. Wiggins' relationship with his Aunt declined in this story, although it was never very strong. His Aunt treated him like he should be a hog and always obey, yet she wanted him to make a hog into a man. His Aunt was not a very nice person, she would only show kindness towards people who shared many of her views, and therefore was probably a very hard person to get along with. The way Mr. Wiggins regarded his relationships most likely would have been different were he white. Mr. Wiggins feels, and rightly so, that several white men try to mock or make a fool of him throughout the story. This was a time of racial discrimination with much bigotry, so if the story took place in the present, it would be much different. In fact, there probably would have not even been a book because in the modern day, and honest and just jury would have found him innocent due to the lack of evidence. It wasn't really clear what sort of situation Mr. Wiggins was in regarding money, but he could not have been too well off because he needed to borrow money to purchase a radio for Jefferson, and he commented about the Rainbow Cafe: "When I was broke, I could always get a meal and pay later, and the same went for the bar." I suppose he had enough money to get by, but not much extra. As the book progresses he probably had less money to work with due to the money he was spending to buy the radio, comic books, and other items for Jefferson. Mr. Wig gins seemed to be well respected by the community, and he felt superior to other African Americans because he was far more educated than they were. That makes Mr. Wiggins guilty of not practicing what he preaches, although Jefferson probably made it clearer to him that the less intelligent are still humans with feelings. At the start of the book, Mr. Wiggins did not understand this. He went to visit Jefferson because Miss Emma and his Aunt more or less forced him to do it. He really had no motivation except that he would be shunned by his Aunt if he did not comply. The whole process of Mr. Wiggins' development and the plot of this story both spawn from the crimes of two characters with no other relevance to the story. After

The Legalization of Euthanasia Essays - Euthanasia, Medical Ethics

The Legalization of Euthanasia Essays - Euthanasia, Medical Ethics Mrs. Turner English 10-4 1 April 15 The Legalization of Euthanasia Death is a tangible option for those who are suffering and see no value in life. As human beings, we should have the right to put an end to our own undergoing pain and choose a dignified death. Euthanasia, the hastening of death for a terminally ill person, is the practice of deliberately ending the life of an individual who is deteriorating from an incurable disease or intolerable pain. Todays euthanasia is generally associated with the mercy killing or where the patient requests his or her own death, also known as voluntary euthanasia. However, when a doctor takes premeditated actions to cause a death, it is known as active euthanasia. Knowing that, it is seemingly appropriate to say that I believe in the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. When a person no longer wishes to waste his or her life withering away in a hospital bed, that person should have the ability to resort to death because of their right to do as they please and the relief from the unendurable torment. An individual should have the liberty to own his or her own life, and if the reasons are rational, be able to discontinue his or her own life. Human beings are autonomous people with a right to self-sufficiency, independence, and self-regulation; we should be able to take responsibility for our own actions and make our own choices. If circumstances are completely intolerable, we should have the freedom to choose to die. Every person should have the legal right to make choices according to their own lives and values, as long as their choices do not insist upon the liberties of others. The choice of a terminally ill person to die does not impose on the rights of othersonly their own. Patients should be guaranteed the right of not being forced to suffer, as stated in the European Declaration of Human Rights (Euthanasia- ProCon.org). Whether they want to avoid excruciating pain or just end their life in a dignified manner, it is implied in the concept of ordered liberty that they have th e self-entitlement to refuse life-saving medical treatment or ask for death. To many patients, being clinically alive is simply inadequate and as a New York City doctor Jacob Appel argues, how they value their lives is inextricably linked to the quality of their lives (Right to Die). When a patients life lacks self-awareness or an inherent presence as a human because of their extreme physical and mental suffering, that patient should have the entitlement to choose a decorous death rather than an indecorous existence, as it offers them the solace of a potential escape from suffering if they ever desire it (Right to Die). A patient should have the justification to end his or her own life through the medical act of euthanasia because of the unsolicited agony, suffering, and misery linked to the disease or state he or she is in. Each person has different amounts of pain and suffering that he or she can tolerate and when a patient is suffering from a severe condition such as a terminal illness, one cannot disregard their feelings and thoughts of grief, distress, and hopelessness. By willingly falling into a deep sleep, patients are able to escape their desolation and feelings of despondency. Even with palliative care, many patients still experience extensive physical and existential suffering and pain, and pain is not always adequately controlled by palliative medicine (South Australia). With some cases of illnesses, the pain can only be subsided by producing a prolonged unconsciousness or coma. There are illnesses such as Total Dependence Syndrome, the loss of independence and control in the terminal de caying phase, which have non-painful syndromes but still involve extreme suffering (South Australia). Therefore, it is needless to say that euthanasia is a doctors act of clemency and care. Although doctors show an act of mercy for those who are suffering from unbearable pain through euthanasia, many people argue that they are still violating the Hippocratic Oath; a Greek medical oath taken by all physicians to swear upon their patients to the best of ones ability. The oath clearly dictates that physicians should not prescribe nor administer a lethal