Lyceum Group Four

Lyceum Group Four: Grade A Fools

  • corby martin
  • Christine Smith
  • Brian

Rodney Rather

English 2327 - 30530

5 December 2008

Government Authority

The government of the United States had incarcerated one in a hundred Americans at the beginning of the year 2008. United States is the leading country for people being imprisoned, especially over illegal activities that have self afflicting effects upon those who choose to go through with it. Our government has established and funded departments to watch over the people's civil liberties and to arrest those who violate them. We believe this is very significant because the government shouldn't have the right to decide for a person on what they can do with their body and their life. The government tries to control society by telling people how the world should be instead of letting the people make decisions for themselves. This passage will discuss how the government takes away the people's choices to use drugs, perform prostitution, and prohibit the method of euthanasia.

Drugs have been around for hundreds of years, and until the 1920's there were no laws in America regulating them. At the beginning of the twentieth century people could buy heroin from the Sears' catalog, but around 1920 the government decided to take the people's right to decide on how they can treat their own bodies. The movement started with high taxes on everything, but eventually they just outlawed heroin, opium, marijuana, and alcohol. These men that are in office in Washington decided what millions of people could do or how they could do things. It doesn't stop there, every time a new drug hits the street, in about twenty years they take it away and band it like we are little children. If these drugs are 'so' dangerous and the government must treat us like little babies around them, then why have there been many cases of the government feeding LSD to unknowing soldiers and civilians? So who has the right to tell a person as an individual what they are allowed to put in your body or what they are allowed to do with it?

When people consume drugs they are not inducing harm on anyone but themselves, so why would anyone step in and try to make a decision that is yours and not the governments? Many drugs like caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and salvia are legal depending on people's age, but there is also cocaine, morphine, amphetamines, and many more that doctors and pharmacists regulate. So does the government get to choose which ones are "too bad" for the streets and which ones only kill people slowly enough that it really doesn't matter whether there on the streets? I know I have never given up my right to choose what I can do with my body, did you?

We are told all throughout our life to take care of our body, since it’s the only one we have. If it's our responsibility to take care of it, shouldn’t we also be able to make decisions on how we use it? The decision on how we use our bodies for certain questionable acts has been debated amongst governments for centuries, and one of these acts is prostitution. The dictionary defines prostitution as "the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money," and it is one of the oldest business markets in history. Much of prostitution is maintained under the table and is performed by independent contractors so the government is unable to profit from it. If managed correctly, this unique art form could significantly boost our economies finances. Something I find humor in is the fact that the men that continue to refuse the legalization of prostitution are the same men that are found in bathrooms conducting such acts that they are so strongly against.

A vast amount of adults require human companionship at some point in their lives whether it be a blind date, stripper, or escort service. All are accepted legitimate businesses that the government profits from through taxes, and all are on the same track as prostitution, so why do we stop there?
The hesitation to make this act accepted in our legal system is directed to a very much medieval view on how society works. “Don’t have sex before you are married, don’t drink before 5, and divorce is a sin” are beliefs’ that are something of the past; our society's morals have evolved, and it makes since that the laws do the same.

Euthanasia is amongst one of the top most controversial subjects of America. It is legal in very few states, but is illegal and deemed as murder to the rest of the country. As explained before, the choice of what people can do to their own body is (or at least should be) their "God given" right as a human being. There is voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when a person requests for another person, such as a doctor, to help them die; involuntary euthanasia is where that person is unable to make a decision whether or not they would rather die, and so the ultimate decision is made by someone else based upon certain extremes of the situation. There are also three ways in pursuing euthanasia; they are carried out passively, actively, and non-actively. The passive method is where the doctors withhold certain treatments (antibiotics, surgery, etc.) or allocate certain medication (like morphine) knowing it will eventually result in death. This tends to be the case that hospitals and doctors lean more towards. The active euthanasia (most controversial) uses particular substances that are lethal to the human body and forces the death of that person. Non-active is where they "pull the plug" on that person's life support and abruptly ending their life, this is usually used to the patients that are unconscious and cannot decide whether or not they would rather die.

If you are thinking euthanasia as suicide, think again. Euthanasia is only self assisted suicide due to an unconditional situation that leaves that person unable to live much longer. Many people are delusional or extremely confused whenever they learn they only have a limited time to live, or when they are in a considerable amount of pain, but under certain conditions it is still that person's choice whether or not they want to be killed or left to die. If a person is told they have some type of cancer, then that is a case that euthanasia would be not 'recommended' since there is a great possibility of surviving it, though it is still their body and their life and therefore should still be accepted if they want it. It does not mean when they ask you to perform euthanasia that you are required to end their life, there is always someone else that would be up for the task. The government has stepped in and they feel like they have the right to tell a person if they are allowed to die or not. What gives them that right to let people live through pain and stay on life support for the rest of their lives? If they were in the same situation as those depending on a machine to keep them alive, they would then understand that it would be like living in hell already. Young children that are under life or death conditions should indeed speak with their parents before becoming up with an ultimate decision (unless they are unable to waken of course), and still at least be up to the parents after they have a long talk about the diagnosis and condition of the child with the doctor. The hospitals that do perform euthanasia should continue the process of checking the background, diagnosis, and if that person has a liable chance of surviving. Because otherwise, if the patient doesn't fit the category of those that are on the edge of death, or about to die within a short time frame, then should be the only circumstances of not being under the use of euthanasia. That itself would then be classified almost as a suicide, but if they have little time left and want to go ahead and end their misery, then they should be allowed to request for euthanasia. There are many circumstances and certain situations that must be looked upon and studied closely, and there should still be the option of assisted suicide since it is their life and their body.

Basically, the fact of the matter is that the government should not have full control over a person's life, because they are not the ones that brought this person upon this world. It is understandable the help they are trying to provide, but the only help the people need in these events is to support the person's decisions and requests. It's not like anyone is forced to perform the euthanasia, but a request that is not given can be unsympathetic to those in pain. The government can continue to look down upon euthanasia, but to support the choices and the freedoms that the people rightfully deserve is a much higher mark of distinction than forcing them to live through the worry of dying at any moment. It's the people's choice, and they should have all rights to end their suffering if they wish it.

In conclusion, this passage shows how government has unnecessary control over our lives, and for many of the people fighting against these three things are prejudiced of their own arguments. Whether people choose to use drugs, perform prostitution, or decide to end everything with euthanasia, it's our life and we should be able to decide our path for ourselves. There are certain circumstances that people do need to be controlled over, like murder. Though when it's something that is self-inflicting, then the government should have no say. Overall, revisions need to be made in order for people to actually feel the freedom that they have rightfully earned.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License