Non-Moral or Religious Standpoint; While

¶ … non-moral or religious standpoint; while individual suicide is illigeal in many countries, the more legalistic issue is final exit, or assisted suicide that is advocated by many right-to-die organizations. There is not necessarily a completely clear legal distinction between "assisted suicide" and "final exit suicide." Advocates of final exit suicide will say that the decision to end one's life should remain with the individual, not the State. And if a group or another person lends information that can help someone end pain and suffering, that is not murder or manslaughter. If another individual assists in helping someone commit suicide, they are, in legal terms, abetting a felony. The predominant medical view in the United States holds that anyone who wants to willingly end their life must have a mental health condition, and is therefore not qualified to make a life and death decision. Other countries are liberalizing the legalities, and find a clear difference in an individual with a terminal illness choosing quality of life over quantity.

Part 2 -- the idea of euthanasia often uses incurable pain as a reason for ending life. However, pain is a relative term. For example, in the Terri Schiavo case, pain was not the seminal issue, but quality of life and the ability to be an actualized human being. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, causing her husband to petition the Court to remove her feeding tube. This was opposed by Terri's parents and a host of other conservative and pro-life movements, including President George W. Bush. In total, the Schiavo case involved 14 appeals, numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in Florida, and five in Federal District Court, the Florida Supreme Court, Federal legislation, and four denials of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, after 15 years of legislation, the local Court's decision to disconnect Terri was carried out in March, 2005 (Goodman, 2009).

Part 3 -- the idea of doctors practicing euthanasia is not a clear-cut argument. Do these doctors simply practice the speciality -- or are they part of the decision making process in deciding whether the person's own individualized view of life meets their own; or in the opposite case, if someone is in excruciating pain but wants to live, would the doctor overmedicate in order to "make the patient comfortable?" At the very center of the debate on euthanasia lies the core of individual and societal ethics. Ethics is a philosophical concept that attempts to explain the moral organization within a given chronological time and cultural event. It is more concerned with understanding the way that ethnical ideas are presented, than judging those concepts within the construct of the society. On one hand, allowing a doctor to assist a patient in a predetermined decision would alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill, and allow they a dignified and self-choosen death. However, despite the advances in medical science, doctors cannot yet predict remission or recovery, and seminaly miraculous recoveries have occurred long after medical science believed the patient to be clinically brain dead (Overview of Arguments, Information for Research).

Part 4 -- Just War and Iraq -- it can be very difficult to define intangible philosophies or actions that are both part of the human psyche and that seem obvious. One of these such intangibles is war. What is war? Each historical period has added a new meaning to the word, but the essence of it still remained the same. War is always associated with terror, cruelty and unhappiness. There are really five elements that allow a just war: cause, authority, intention, hope for success, and proportionality. Without becoming too cynical, most scholars would probably agree that the first Iraqi war was "Just" but the second, under Bush II, was not. There were clear distinctions. In the first, Iraq invaded a soverign country, Kuwait, who asked for aid and protection; in the second, data was never fully disclosed as to the infamous weapons of mass destruction, and later found to be exaggerated and false, thus not allowing for most of the principles of justness; but more as an economic excuse (Coady, 2008, 58-60).