Although the solution that is often most supported is that of euthanasia, as a better solution, I

would like to use New Media to advocate for no euthanasia for many people who suffer from

comatose or terminal illnesses because I feel that people lack understanding towards its

importance and the impacts it has on society. If euthanasia is widely accepted as something that

can be done simply because someone is terminally ill, this would impact society negatively as

family members can easily make use of this cause to gain a form of benefit to themselves (such

as insurance, money from his will). With such stereotypes festering in modern society, it would

surely affect the rights and freedom when making the choice of survival for a terminally ill

patient. Therefore, I feel the need to advocate for no euthanasia as a policy that can be

applicable to all terminally ill patients. As New Media shows how perspectives are perceived,

using it would be able to impact societies and hence, allow people to decide for or against

euthanasia in a better frame of mind.

Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her

alleged benefit and even as it is able to relieve people of their burdens, it is unable to give

terminally ill patients freedom to how they choose to live their life. Being unable to make such a

choice, the situation of euthanasia for terminally ill patients may be a difficult one. Choosing to

advocate the policy of no euthanasia, on many sites, the many other perspectives of euthanasia

is often neglected through new media. There are also too many articles that bring about its

arguments for euthanasia and so, an unequal and biased representation of how euthanasia

should be is thus shown.

It can be seen that much of the information being distributed on the internet,

that of articles, tables, charts and even pictures show a form of biasness towards the appeal of

euthanasia being offered to people, thus there is indeed insufficient information given towards

people to make the decision to be euthanized or not. Some sites being shown by Google such

as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia and www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html

does not provide enough information. It merely shows the definitions and legal statuses, all of

which may not provide people with the correct mindsets in using euthanasia on a patient.

Caption: Euthanasia chart for animals

Hence, using new media, through sites such as Facebook, Google, Youtube and blogs, changing

the content of what is being packaged to people about euthanasia is important in order to allow

opinions of a certain issue to be expressed but at the same time, people are able to view more

perspectives of the issue though articles that reveal the truth about euthanasia.

However, even as this is done, in the case of euthanasia, the information and understanding of it

is not widespread enough and neither is it clearly explained. With New Media, it does enable a

certain extent of understanding towards the euthanasia situation, it would be able to let more

people understand euthanasia, its ethnical arguments and various perspectives. Although New

Media such as through Google, a search engine website, is able to allow more people to see the

situation of euthanasia in a different light, but it is unable to appropriately explain how and why

it should be done. However, more often than not, the content on New Media is insufficient,

euthanasia being explained in terms of its processes and its multiple perspectives is not enough

to express to people if it is the wrong or right thing to do. Thus, I feel that more articles of

relevant explanation can be placed in these New Media sites to ensure that the euthanasia

situation can be better understood by many people all across the world. It is with New Media

that allows information to be wide-spread and it would be even more efficient if it is able to

convey the appropriate information so family members and terminally ill patients can then

make the right decision for themselves or for their loved ones and discontinue inappropriately

occurring euthanasia.

New Media is however, not entirely indispensable, sometimes information can be mixed up and

it may be less reliable than actual news reports, stories or updates regarding the euthanasia law,

thus, it may not always be useful in globalisation as it can convey the wrong ideas.

Using New Media enables the spread of information that leads to globalisation as all the different

countries get exposed to these sources of information. With globalisation, it encourages better

communication over a certain issue and thus impacts euthanasia such that it is more widely

known and people can get the chance to be exposed to this issue more greatly with the greater

content of information provided about it. At the same time, globalisation through New Media

works out because this spread of information encourages various mindsets among people thus

allowing them to communicate to each other of the ideas and perspectives they get from

euthanasia. It lets people take another step into trying to process this information, an example

is that of the issue of euthanasia and how it applies to each person’s values and principles. This

mutual understanding of globalisation and the interconnectedness and interdependence

between people allows increased global exchanges that impacts euthanasia positively as people

can gain more insight from it and will make better decisions when they face such a difficult

situation of a terminal illness or a comatose.

At the same time, having two sides to a coin, globalisation through New Media has also caused

problems. Cultures in local countries have became increasingly overwhelmed by other cultures

and so local cultures cannot have a chance to develop any longer. Such a fast rate of spreading of

information has resulted in a more negative impact towards society such that the old if forgotten

and the new being quickly replaced. In terms of euthanasia, such a problem does affect the

situation such that religion or ethnics may not matter any longer towards the decision making of

whether or not to euthanize a person because all that is being focused on is the issue’s pros and

cons, perhaps even its benefits costs. No longer are there any more traditional ties to the

decision making which is biased as it does not consider other perspectives influenced by local

cultures. Often, our dispositions can be affected as we do not have time to react to be certain

that claims laid to euthanasia is definitely correct. The reliabilities of claims that lay towards

articles of euthanasia may also be questioned as its theories may not have been entirely

approved of which can develop the wrong mindsets towards people.

Hopefully, through the increase of content on New Media and through uploading more content

essential to that of understanding the euthanasia situation, people would make a better decision

towards euthanasia for terminally ill patients.

(1200 words, not including captions)

Although the solution that is often most supported is that of euthanasia, as a better solution, I

would like to use New Media to advocate for no euthanasia for many people who suffer from

comatose or terminal illnesses because I feel that people lack understanding towards its

importance and the impacts it has on society. If euthanasia is widely accepted as something that

can be done simply because someone is terminally ill, this would impact society negatively as

family members can easily make use of this cause to gain a form of benefit to themselves (such

as insurance, money from his will). With such stereotypes festering in modern society, it would

surely affect the rights and freedom when making the choice of survival for a terminally ill

patient. Therefore, I feel the need to advocate for no euthanasia as a policy that can be

applicable to all terminally ill patients. As New Media shows how perspectives are perceived,

using it would be able to impact societies and hence, allow people to decide for or against

euthanasia in a better frame of mind.

Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her

alleged benefit and even as it is able to relieve people of their burdens, it is unable to give

terminally ill patients freedom to how they choose to live their life. Being unable to make such a

choice, the situation of euthanasia for terminally ill patients may be a difficult one. Choosing to

advocate the policy of no euthanasia, on many sites, the many other perspectives of euthanasia

is often neglected through new media. There are also too many articles that bring about its

arguments for euthanasia and so, an unequal and biased representation of how euthanasia

should be is thus shown.

It can be seen that much of the information being distributed on the internet,

that of articles, tables, charts and even pictures show a form of biasness towards the appeal of

euthanasia being offered to people, thus there is indeed insufficient information given towards

people to make the decision to be euthanized or not. Some sites being shown by Google such

as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia and www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html

does not provide enough information. It merely shows the definitions and legal statuses, all of

which may not provide people with the correct mindsets in using euthanasia on a patient.

Caption: Euthanasia chart for animals

Hence, using new media, through sites such as Facebook, Google, Youtube and blogs, changing

the content of what is being packaged to people about euthanasia is important in order to allow

opinions of a certain issue to be expressed but at the same time, people are able to view more

perspectives of the issue though articles that reveal the truth about euthanasia.

However, even as this is done, in the case of euthanasia, the information and understanding of it

is not widespread enough and neither is it clearly explained. With New Media, it does enable a

certain extent of understanding towards the euthanasia situation, it would be able to let more

people understand euthanasia, its ethnical arguments and various perspectives. Although New

Media such as through Google, a search engine website, is able to allow more people to see the

situation of euthanasia in a different light, but it is unable to appropriately explain how and why

it should be done. However, more often than not, the content on New Media is insufficient,

euthanasia being explained in terms of its processes and its multiple perspectives is not enough

to express to people if it is the wrong or right thing to do. Thus, I feel that more articles of

relevant explanation can be placed in these New Media sites to ensure that the euthanasia

situation can be better understood by many people all across the world. It is with New Media

that allows information to be wide-spread and it would be even more efficient if it is able to

convey the appropriate information so family members and terminally ill patients can then

make the right decision for themselves or for their loved ones and discontinue inappropriately

occurring euthanasia.

New Media is however, not entirely indispensable, sometimes information can be mixed up and

it may be less reliable than actual news reports, stories or updates regarding the euthanasia law,

thus, it may not always be useful in globalisation as it can convey the wrong ideas.

Using New Media enables the spread of information that leads to globalisation as all the different

countries get exposed to these sources of information. With globalisation, it encourages better

communication over a certain issue and thus impacts euthanasia such that it is more widely

known and people can get the chance to be exposed to this issue more greatly with the greater

content of information provided about it. At the same time, globalisation through New Media

works out because this spread of information encourages various mindsets among people thus

allowing them to communicate to each other of the ideas and perspectives they get from

euthanasia. It lets people take another step into trying to process this information, an example

is that of the issue of euthanasia and how it applies to each person’s values and principles. This

mutual understanding of globalisation and the interconnectedness and interdependence

between people allows increased global exchanges that impacts euthanasia positively as people

can gain more insight from it and will make better decisions when they face such a difficult

situation of a terminal illness or a comatose.

At the same time, having two sides to a coin, globalisation through New Media has also caused

problems. Cultures in local countries have became increasingly overwhelmed by other cultures

and so local cultures cannot have a chance to develop any longer. Such a fast rate of spreading of

information has resulted in a more negative impact towards society such that the old if forgotten

and the new being quickly replaced. In terms of euthanasia, such a problem does affect the

situation such that religion or ethnics may not matter any longer towards the decision making of

whether or not to euthanize a person because all that is being focused on is the issue’s pros and

cons, perhaps even its benefits costs. No longer are there any more traditional ties to the

decision making which is biased as it does not consider other perspectives influenced by local

cultures. Often, our dispositions can be affected as we do not have time to react to be certain

that claims laid to euthanasia is definitely correct. The reliabilities of claims that lay towards

articles of euthanasia may also be questioned as its theories may not have been entirely

approved of which can develop the wrong mindsets towards people.

Hopefully, through the increase of content on New Media and through uploading more content

essential to that of understanding the euthanasia situation, people would make a better decision

towards euthanasia for terminally ill patients.

(1200 words, not including captions)