Should euthanasia be legalised or not?

Euthanasia may be defined as bringing about the death of another person with that person's consent There is no straightforward answer to the question of whether euthanasia should be legalised or not. In this essay l will therefore first ofall consider the arguments against legalisation and then the reasons in favour. I shall conclude by arguing that euthanasia should be legal, but only under certain conditions.

Those who oppose the legalisation of euthanasia do so for three main reasons Prima they fear that it will increase the number of murders. They believe this is likely because it will be dificult to be sure in certain cases whether the cause ofa person's death was their own wish or not. Someone wishing to murder an ill or elderly person will be able to make the death look like euthanasia. Therefore from this point of view, euthanasia is likely to endanger lives.

The second main objection is medical. lf euthanasia is permitted, some doctors argue that they would inevitably be the ones who were called on most often to carry it out. This would place an intolerable burden on them. It would thereby mean that the patient would be able to make decisions about whether to live or not regardless of the doctor's judgement. Doctors would effectively no longer be in a position to do whatever they thought was in the best interests of their patients.

A further reason usually put forward for opposing euthanasia is that it is against widely held religious beliefs. According to this view, life is sacred, and no human being has the right to decide to take away life, even his or her own, or to help someone else to do so.

These objections are all seen as unreasonable by supporters of euthanasia, however. They say that even if euthanasia made it easier to commit murder, there is no proof that this would automatically increase the number of murders. The opportunity to commit a murder does not in itself cause murder to take place. As regards the medical objections, proponents of euthanasia say that doctors are already called upon to make life ordeath judgements, such as when the decision is made to turn off the life-support machine ofa patient in a coma. They specifically argue that doctors do not have the right to make the ultimate decisions about a patients care.

Moreover, those in favour of euthanasia argue that human beings are seen by many religions as responsible for their own actions. It is up to the individual in the end to decide what his or her behaviour will be, and to accept the consequences. Therefore, from this point of view, deciding whether to end one's life or to help another to do so is a matter of individual responsibility.

To conclude, I believe it is necessary to take both sets of views into account. This could be done by making euthanasia legal, but only under strict conditions. Thus,

如果安乐死合法化？

安乐死可能被定义为使另一个人的死亡与该人的同意安乐死是否应该合法化与否的问题没有简单的答案。因此，在这篇文章中L将所有“第一考虑的论据反对合法化和青睐的原因。最后，我要认为安乐死应该是合法的，但只有在一定条件下。

谁反对安乐死合法化的这样做主要有三个原因厦华，他们担心这会增加的谋杀案件。他们认为这是可能的，因为它会在某些情况下，OFA事业的人的死亡是否是他们自己的意愿或不难治，以确保。有人希望杀死一个生病或年老的人将能够使安乐死死亡的样子。因此，从这个角度来看，安乐死是有可能危及生命。

第二个主要的反对意见是医疗。如果安乐死是允许的，一些医生认为，他们将不可避免地被称为最经常进行的。这将放置一个难以承受的负担。从而意味着病人将能够作出决策是否居住或不会不顾医生的判断。医生将有效地不再是在一个位置，做任何他们认为是在他们的病人的最佳利益。

通常提出反对安乐死的另一个原因是，它是针对广泛的宗教信仰。根据这种观点，生命是神圣的，没有任何人有权利决定带走的生活，即使他或她自己，或者帮助别人这样做。

所有这些反对安乐死的支持者看作是不合理的，但是。他们说，即使安乐死使得它更容易犯谋杀，没有任何证据，这将自动谋杀案数量的增加。机会去犯一宗谋杀案本身并不导致谋杀发生。至于医疗反对安乐死的支持者说，医生已经呼吁生活ordeath判断，如作出决定时，关掉生命支持机OFA病人处于昏迷状态。他们特别指出，医生没有权利做出最终决定患者的护理。

此外，那些赞成安乐死的人认为，人类看到的许多宗教为自己的行为负责。它是由个人在年底决定将他或她的行为，并承担后果。因此，从这个角度来看，决定是否结束一个人的生命或协助他人这样做是个人责任的问题。

最后，我认为有必要考虑采取两套意见。这可以通过使安乐死的法律，但只有在严格的条件下。因此，

Google generation has no need for rote learning

Alexandra Frean,December 2, 2008

Memorising facts and figures is a waste of time for most schoolchildren because such information is readily available a mere mouse click away, a leading commentator has said.

The existence of Google, Wikipedia and online libraries means that there is no useful place in school for old-fashioned rote learning, according to Don Tapscott, author of the bestselling book Wikinomics and a champion of the “net generation”.

A far better approach would be to teach children to think creatively so that they could learn to interpret and apply the knowledge available online. “Teachers are no longer the fountain of knowledge; the internet is,” Tapscott said. “Kids should learn about history to understand the world and why things are the way they are. But they don’t need to know all the dates. It is enough that they know about the Battle of Hastings, without having to memorise that it was in 1066. They can look that up and position it in history with a click on Google,” he said.

Tapscott denies that his approach is anti-learning. He argues that the ability to learn new things is more important than ever “in a world where you have to process new information at lightning speed”. He said: “Children are going to have to reinvent their knowledge base multiple times. So for them memorising facts and figures is a waste of time.”

Tapscott, who coined the term “the net generation” in his 1998 bestseller Growing Up Digital, bases his observations in his latest book, Grown Up Digital, on a study of nearly 8,000 people in 12 countries born between 1978 and 1994. His observations chime with a trend in British classrooms to cut back on traditional teaching and to personalise learning.

Schools are increasingly moving towards more independent study and so-called enrichment activities, with pupils learning at their own pace and focusing on what interests them most. At Wellington College in Berkshire, for example, teenagers are not taught from the front of the class, but instead sit around a large oval table for seminar-style discussions.

Tapscott believes that the model of education that prevails today in most classrooms was designed for the industrial age. “This might have been good for the mass production economy, but it doesn’t deliver for the challenges of the digital economy, or for the ‘net gen’ mind,” he said.

He suggests that the brains of young people today work differently from those of their parents. He argues that digital immersion, in which children may be texting while surfing the internet and listening to their MP3 player, can help them to develop critical thinking skills.

His views are unlikely to be universally welcomed. Ofsted has reported that pupils’ knowledge and understanding of key historical facts is not good enough to enable them to “form overviews and demonstrate strong conceptual understanding”.

Richard Cairns, Headmaster of Brighton College, one of the country’s top-performing independent schools, said that a core level of knowledge was essential: “It’s important that children learn facts. If you have no store of knowledge in your head to draw from, you cannot easily engage in discussions or make informed decisions.”

Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, has recently criticised “the move away from fact-based learning”, arguing that “knowledge, intellectual capital, is what makes educational progress possible”.

谷歌一代有没有需要死记硬背

2008年12月2日亚历山德拉

对于大多数中小学生的时间记忆法的事实和数字，是一种浪费，因为这些信息是现成的，只需用鼠标点击即可，领先的评论员说。

谷歌，维基百科和网上图书馆的存在意味着有没有有用的地方学校老式死记硬背，根据畅销书维基经济学的作者唐·塔普斯科特，和冠军的“净发电量”。

一个更好的方法是教给孩子进行创造性的思考，使他们能够学会解读和运用所学知识可在网上。 “教师不再是知识的泉源;互联网是，”塔普斯科特说。 “孩子们应该了解历史，了解世界，为什么事情会是这样，他们是。但他们并不需要知道所有的日期。这是足够的，他们知道关于黑斯廷斯战役，而不必记住，这是在1066年。他们可以看看，点击谷歌，并将其放置在历史上，“他说。

塔普斯科特否认，他的做法是反学习。他认为，学习新事物的能力比以往任何时候都更重要的是，“在一个世界里，你必须处理新的信息，以闪电般的速度”。他说：“孩子们将重塑他们的知识基础多次。所以他们记忆事实和数字是在浪费时间。“

塔普斯科特，谁创造的“净发电量”在他1998年的畅销书“成长数字，会根据他的观察，在他的最新著作，长大数字，近8000人在12个国家在1978年和1994年之间出生的研究。他的观察磬英国教室的一个趋势，削减了传统的教学和个性化学习。

越来越多的学校迈向更独立学习和所谓的铀浓缩活动，与学生在自己的步伐学习和重点是什么，他们最感兴趣的。例如，在伯克郡惠灵顿学院，青少年不当着全班同学的教导，而是坐在一个大的椭圆形桌子周围，研讨式的讨论。

塔普斯科特认为，是专为工业时代的教育模式，在今天依然盛行大多数教室。 “这有可能是好的，为大规模生产经济，但它不提供数字经济的挑战，或”净根'的心态，“他说。

他认为，今天的年轻人的大脑有不同的工作，从他们的父母。他认为，数字浸泡，儿童可能在发短信，同时网上冲浪，听着自己的MP3播放器，可以帮助他们培养批判性思考能力。

他的观点是不太可能普遍欢迎。教育标准局报道说，学生的知识和理解重要的历史事实是不够好，使他们能够“形成的概述，并表现出强劲的概念性理解”。

布赖顿学院校长理查德·凯恩斯，一个国家的表现最出色的独立学校，说，核心层的知识是必不可少的：“这是重要的，孩子学习的事实。如果你有知识没有店面，在你的脑袋画，你不能轻易参与讨论或做出明智的决定。“

迈克尔·戈夫，暗影学校秘书，最近批评“的举动远离事实为基础的学习”，认为“知识，智力资本，是什么让教育进步成为可能”。