Burbank, California; November 10, 2001; Joan Marques, MBA
(URL: https://www.angelfire.com/id/joanmarques/PR)
Introduction
This paper is an
attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy in modern thinking by comparing the legal
attitude towards the much disputed issues of the death penalty and euthanasia
in a society that labels itself as free: the U.S. society. The view of the
researcher was enhanced by Daniel Quinn’s inspirational book “Ishmael” and the
movie “Instinct”, based on Quinn’s book.
Ishmael presents the story of a gorilla that taught a man to look at “modern civilization” from an outsider’s point of view. One soon discovers that the dominating theme in society seems to be control: controlling one’s behavior, position, status, and property. It seems that everything around us is based on this phenomenon; we are controlled by the need to control! Laws increasingly show that there is something immensely wrong with society’s perception of freedom.
One of the ways
modern society controls the fate of its members is through the application of
the death penalty. On June 11 Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber whose
act killed 168 people and wounded hundreds more, was executed. He had committed
an unforgivable crime, and the legal controllers decided to take his life. On
the other hand, however, the U.S. society has a problem with one’s desire to
end one’s own life if one feels that death is inevitable. Euthanasia is still
taboo in the majority of the United States, even for the terminally ill. The
euthanasia dilemma is another excellent example of the control that modern
“free” society demands upon its members.
The movie
Instinct, like the book Ishmael, also emphasizes the issue of control. Humanity
seems to have become the stereotype of insanity. Humans consider themselves the
gods of the world: thereby exterminating everything that does not bow or bend.
To get a
thorough understanding of the way our society is constructed, and what the
issues are that need serious attention in order to prevent our culture from
crashing, one should read “Ishmael”, the story of modern civilization, from an
outsider’s point of view, presented by Daniel Quinn.
Ishmael, a
gorilla, challenges his human pupil to deeply examine himself and his kind, and
to figure out what “mother culture (Quinn, 1992, p.37)” has taught our society.
Using the expression “Take it or leave it” as a basis, Ishmael divides mankind
in two categories: the Takers, and the Leavers (Quinn, 1992, p.38). The Takers
are those who have been indoctrinated by the churches and prophets (Quinn,
1992, p.86), to believe that the world belongs to Man (Quinn, 1992,
p.239), that man is the center of the universe, and that everything should
serve man. The Takers were also taught that there is only one right way
of living (Quinn, 1992, p.205), and were thereby forced to adapt to life-styles
that often did not even fit their geographical and physical circumstances. Taker
culture has become the culture of expansion, one of neglecting the laws of
nature, one of “caring for the poor”,
an act that, even though fundamentally noble, has erupted into the current
population explosion due to the poor way in which it is performed (Quinn, 1992,
p. 136-137). Taker culture has also become one of destroying everything that
crosses its path (Quinn, 1992, p. 130).
It has evolved into a culture to save, to store, and especially to not rely on the gods but solely on oneself,
because Takers want to take matters in their own hand: they want to be in
control. The Taker culture is what we now know as modern civilization.
The Leavers,
according to Ishmael, are the peoples that have always been hunted down by the
Takers. They live by the rule: Man belongs to the world (Quinn, 1992,
p.239). Their culture develops as a result of the circumstances under which
they are living. Leavers realize that there is no one right way to live
(Quinn, 1992, p.248).
Ishmael explains
that there are 3 hard lessons the Taker society must learn from the gods.
Takers therefore
have to realize as soon as possible that their culture does not “fly”, but is
heading for a fatal crash (Quinn, 1992, p.109), unless they restart obeying the
rules of the game. Lesson 3 will be the hardest to accept by the Takers. It
will require an awakening and a renewed respect for natural laws, thereby
putting mother culture - the foundation of the Takers’ perception of uniqueness
and superiority - to sleep forever (Quinn, 1992, p.144). Ishmael is analyzing
how things came to be the way they are by explaining that the Taker- and Leaver
cultures were initially the same. However, at a certain point in time,
somewhere in the fertile land between the Euphrates and the Tigris, Adam
(Semite for “man”) (Quinn, 1992,
p.178), ate from the forbidden tree of “knowledge of good and evil”, and was
tempted by Eve (Semite for “life”) (Quinn, 1992, p.179). From then on man
thought he was God. He concluded that he was the ruler of the world, having the
power to decide who should live and who should die. The story of Adam should
not be seen as the start of mankind, but as the start of Taker-culture…or agricultural
revolution (Quinn, 1992, p.152).
Referring to the
Biblical book “Genesis”, Ishmael asserts that this should be seen as a parable,
in which Cain is the symbol of man in Taker-culture, and Abel is the symbol of
man in Leaver culture (Quinn, 1992, p.173). Abel, exclaims Ishmael, is still
very much alive, though hunted down wherever Cain can find him (Quinn, 1992,
p.216). Abel is nowadays represented by the hunter-gatherers, which are called
“primitive” by the Takers, because they don’t save and store for tomorrow, but
they remained unsuspecting and naive enough through time to continue living in
the hands of the gods (Quinn, 1992, p.299). Leavers still live with the trust
that the world will regularly provide food. And if that does not happen they die,
because dying is no shame to them. They are therefore never confronted with the
problem of overpopulation, yet they survive! Cain, on the other hand, is
represented by the agrarian culture of storing, killing off everything that
disrupts his plans (Quinn, 1992, p.132), and hence, bringing the whole system
out of balance. Cain is “us”.
Ishmael
emphasizes that if we don’t start realizing that our story is an unfortunate
one, and that our culture is the destructive and enslaving kind, we will crash,
just like others before us. Realizing that man is an end product might become a
devastating truth. If every story is enacted, then what we do is working on the
realization of the fact that man is an end product while all other creatures are
still evolving. Seeing ourselves as an end product might mean: making
ourselves an end
product. Our self-destruction will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy (based on Quinn, 1992, p.238-239).
The case of
Timothy McVeigh’s execution is used in this paper as an example of the
perception that modern society has on its power as the almighty ruler of its
members. McVeigh’s story proves that individuals can be victimized by their own
culture by picking up signals, interpreting them within their own acuity, and
sending them back into society with devastating results. This case also
demonstrates how modern society creates its own monsters, and hence, encourages
its own destruction.
On June 13,
1997, jurors in the Oklahoma City bombing trial decided the fate of Timothy
McVeigh. The jury unanimously sentenced McVeigh to death (CBS-Channel2,
1997). On August 14, 1997, Timothy
McVeigh was formally sentenced to death for the Oklahoma City bombing
after he quoted a Supreme Court justice who said the government “teaches the
people by its example”. (CBS-Channel2, 1997)
In United States v. McVeigh No. 97-1287 United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit, Timothy McVeigh's conviction and sentence were affirmed after reviewing the initial sentence. Within the document is stated, “The jury deliberated for two days before returning special findings recommending that McVeigh be sentenced to death. After denying McVeigh's motion for a new trial, the district court accepted the jury recommendation on August 14, 1997, sentencing McVeigh to death on all eleven counts (1999, par.16)”.
Timothy McVeigh,
infamous for blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
on April 19, 1995, thereby killing 168 people and wounding hundreds more (CNN.com,
2001, par.4), was, according to Russakoff & Kovaleski (1995), a prototype
of his generation. His parents divorced when he was ten years old, and he grew
up without a real challenge. Uninterested as he was in college, he hit the job
market in the mid-1980s as it ran out of room for young men with blue-collar
skills. Aware of affirmative action for women and minorities, he began to feel
shortchanged as a white male (Russakoff & Kovaleski, 1995, par.1).
Russakoff & Kovaleski (1995) exclaim that McVeigh then joined the army, but
bailed out as the military downsized with the fall of communism. A December
1991 Army evaluation rated Sergeant McVeigh "among the best" in
leadership potential and an "inspiration to young soldiers." However,
like millions in his generation, he ended up back home as an adult, a man
sleeping in a boy's room, headed exactly where he'd feared: nowhere (par.2).
Russakoff & Kovaleski (1995) state further that it was a shock to the
American society to find out that the prime suspects in the Oklahoma City
bombing were not foreign terrorists but men from the nation's heartland
(par.5). Russakoff & Kovaleski (1995) exclaim that the plot was not hatched
in Beirut or Baghdad but possibly in the backwoods of northeast Michigan by a
paramilitary cell that investigators allege McVeigh formed with accused
conspirator Terry Lynn Nichols and Nichols's brother James. Both Tim McVeigh
and Terry Nichols are products of Middle America, and their lives raise
troubling questions about the strength of the social fabric there (par.5).
The concerning
facts about - what Ishmael calls- mother culture’s disastrous influence on the
Taker society, are expressed in the following statement by Russakoff &
Kovaleski (1995)
Psychologists
have warned for years that young people like McVeigh born in the late 1960s,
whose families fractured in record numbers, whose economic frustrations far
exceed those of their parents, are unusually alienated and vulnerable to fringe
movements. In this view, the social and economic upheavals of the last 20 years
have planted a virus in American society with still unrealized capacity for
damage (par.10).
McVeigh may, in
his own way, have been aware of the signs that modern culture is on its way to
a crash. He wrote in 1992, “Just as communism failed, democracy "seems to
be headed down the same road. No one is seeing the big' picture . . . AMERICA
IS IN DECLINE"(Russakoff & Kovaleski, 1995, par.81). McVeigh
continued: "Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that! But it
might"(Russakoff & Kovaleski, 1995, par.82).
[McVeigh] told
the authors of "American Terrorist" that he bombed the [Alfred P.
Murrah Federal] building to avenge the 1992 government siege at Ruby Ridge,
Idaho, when federal agents killed the wife and son of separatist Randy Weaver,
and the 1993 federal raid on a religious cult near Waco, Texas, where 80 people
were killed, including 22 children (Romano, 2001, par.38).
In United States
v. McVeigh No. 97-1287 United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit is
stated
1.
[2] Timothy McVeigh believed that the ATF and FBI were responsible for the
deaths of everyone who lost their lives at Mt. Carmel, near Waco Texas, between
February 28 and April 19, 1993.
2.
[4] Timothy McVeigh believed that the increasing use of military- style force
tactics by federal law enforcement agencies against American citizens
threatened an approaching police state. [**141]
3.
[5] Timothy McVeigh's belief that federal law enforcement agencies failed to
take responsibilities for their actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and failed to
punish those persons responsible, added to his growing concerns regarding the
existence of a police state and a loss of constitutional liberties (1999).
Researcher’s
Comment
McVeigh’s act of bombing a federal building and thereby killing 168 souls was, to him, an act of war. He did not kill innocent people out of lust to murder, but rather to make a statement to the Federal Government. His deed is one that may not be understood, nor defended. However, it emphasizes more than anything the destruction that can be caused by an embittered member of society.
As McVeigh
stated himself in his essay, published in the June 1998 issue of Media Bypass
Magazine, as well as on-line by The Associated Press,
When
considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to
an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as
they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its
example." (McVeigh, 1998, par. 11)
Six years, one
month and 23 days after a truck bomb shattered the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, federal prison authorities placed a needle in
Timothy McVeigh's right leg and pumped a deadly stream of drugs into his veins
(CNN.com, 2001). Executing McVeigh by
lethal injection will neither satisfy [the] desire [of the relatives of the
bombing-victims], nor can it mask the stark reality that when the federal
government, acting on behalf of all the citizens of the United States, kills
McVeigh, we will have become killers too (Sarat, 2001).
Researcher’s
Comment
Aside from the fact that one may wonder whether McVeigh was not better off by being executed instead of being confronted with his horrible deed for the rest of his life, remains the question whether any Government has the right to take a life, even if that life is responsible for the loss of many other lives. The controlling basis of the U.S. legal system is mercilessly displayed by this affair. If the government decides that one has done something wrong, one’s life can be taken from him or her. Is the life of the individuals, then, the property of the government? And how are we supposed to see that in the light of freedom?
As mentioned in
the introduction (p.3), the U.S. laws generally do not approve of one’s desire
to end one’s own life if one feels that death is inevitable. Euthanasia is
still taboo in the majority of the United States, even for the terminally ill.
The legal attitude towards euthanasia will be examined more closely in this
paper as an illustration of the controlling mind-set of modern culture.
On the website of the organization for
Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm), it is
asserted that “the word euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means
"good" and thanatos means "death". The meaning of the word
is "the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request
of the person who dies (2001, par.2)."
Religious Tolerance continues that the term euthanasia normally implies
that the act must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide.
However, some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and
involuntary termination of life. Like so many moral/ethical/religious terms,
"euthanasia" has many meanings. The result is mass confusion (2001,
par.2). In this paper euthanasia will
be interpreted as stated above: a request by a terminally ill patient to be
assisted, actively or passively, in dying peacefully.
The facts
reported below are intended to give an impression of the ambivalence that has
been going on within the U.S. in the last 10-15 years on this topic. In 1996, two
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal struck down laws prohibiting assisted suicide.
The appeals on these rulings were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court January 8,
1997. The court unanimously overturned both Circuit Court rulings on June 26,
1997 (UB Center for Clinical Ethics and Humanities in Health Care, 2000). The
underlying cases were “Vacco v. Quill, 117 S. Ct. 2293, and Washington v.
Glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2258” (Benson, 1999, p. 263). The UB Center further
exclaims that on November 8, 1994, Oregon voters approved Measure 16, the
"Death with Dignity Act" (2000).
There are
proponents and opponents of euthanasia at every level of the legal system. One
of the proponents, according to Uhlman (1996), is judge Reinhardt of the Ninth
Circuit of Appeals [who] concludes that denying a terminally ill patient the
right to assisted suicide may work an even greater injustice than "forcing
a woman to carry a pregnancy to term." (par.14). Uhlman, who seems to
oppose euthanasia, asserts that the March 6, 1996 opinion of the Ninth Court of
Appeals in “Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington” turned precisely on the
point that abortion and assisted suicide share a common rationale (1996,
par.2).
That rationale will be found, the court said, in the liberty guarantee
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall . .
. deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law"). Citing abundant Supreme Court precedent, the court pointed out that
liberty is an evolving concept whose content cannot be limited by historical
understanding, customary usage, or, for that matter, the words of the
Constitution itself. Although the specific content of one's "liberty"
at any given time may be difficult to assess, we know at least this much:
choices central to personal autonomy are also central to liberty under the
Fourteenth Amendment. A right of autonomy broad enough to cover a woman's right
to kill her offspring, declares the Ninth Circuit, is broad enough to cover (at
the very least) a terminally ill person's right to determine the time and
manner of death (Uhlman, 1996, par.2).
In reality, the
basic question posed by euthanasia/assisted suicide is:
·
Should a
person:
o
Who is
terminally ill, and
o
Who feels
that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain, and/or loss of
dignity, and/or loss of capability and
o
Who
repeatedly and actively asks for help in committing suicide and
o
Who is of
sound mind and not suffering from depression
be
given assistance in dying? (Religious Tolerance, 2001, par.20)
Religious
Tolerance states that ultimately, euthanasia is a question of choice:
empowering people to have control over their own bodies. As of 1999-MAR, unless
a person lives in Columbia, Japan, the Netherlands or the state of Oregon, the
only lawful option is to remain alive, sometimes in intractable pain, until
their body finally collapses (2001).
A perfect way
of capturing the necessity of legalizing euthanasia is the quotation “Whose life is it, anyway?” a
plea by the late Sue Rodrigues, a high-profile, terminally-ill resident of
British Columbia, Canada, who suffered from ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral
Sclerosis). She was helped to commit suicide by a physician in violation of
Canadian law (Religious Tolerance, 2001).
Frankford (2000)
states that in the United States, the arguments from absolutes have been
legally foreclosed by the Supreme Court, which ruled that there is no absolute
right, constitutionally enshrined, to control the time, place, and manner of
one's death, a ruling which also implicitly allows, if not invites, the
creation of variegated experience in the laboratory of the states (p.377-378).
Battin (2000)
exclaims that “euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide” form a “debate that
has been developing over the past ten years or so in medical, academic, and
public circles” (p.415). Battin (2000) explains that there are five arguments
in general that lead to opinions for or against physician-assisted suicide.
·
Principal arguments
for physician-assisted suicide
o
The
argument from autonomy (If a person has the right to determine as much as
possible the course of his or her own life, should that person not be able to
determine his or her own dying?)
o
The
argument from relief of pain and suffering (Should anybody have to endure
pointless terminal suffering?)
·
Principal
arguments against physician-assisted suicide
o
The
argument from the wrongness of killing (Taking a human life is simply wrong:
this is evident in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”)
o
The
argument from the integrity of the physician (Doctors should not kill. This is
prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath. The physician is bound to save life, not
take it)
o
The
slippery slope argument (Permitting physicians to assist in suicide, even in
sympathetic cases, may lead to situations where patients are killed against
their will) (Table 2, p. 415-430).
The main
opposition toward euthanasia comes from some:
·
Conservative
religious groups. They are often the same organizations that oppose access to
abortion.
·
Medical
associations whose members are dedicated to saving and extending life, and feel
uncomfortable helping people end their lives.
·
Groups
concerned with disabilities, which fear that euthanasia is the first step
towards a society that will kill disabled people against their will (Religious
Tolerance, 2001).
Euthanasia is a
subject that is being discussed in legal, medical and religious arenas. It is a
highly charged emotional subject on which the majority of the American society
still seems to have a definite opinion. These opinions are usually based upon
an individual's personal experiences and religion; the experiences of friends,
acquaintances, or co-workers; and the views and comments heard, seen and read
through the media. Seshen (2000) states, in the web article “The Right to Die,”
that it seems such a simple right, to choose to die with dignity rather than
continue a life of needless suffering. So, why are we so uneasy about even
talking about it? (par.1). Seshen (2000) continues with the following statement
One
problem is our society's denial of the reality of death itself. Our mainstream
religious influences define the end of the life cycle as an aberration to be
saved from rather than a natural course of events. Physical death is an enemy
and beyond our control, being instead "in God's hands." The
individual who willingly chooses to terminate their life is considered a
hapless victim of ungodly influences, or an extremely selfish individual with
no concern for the feelings of family and friends. It seems the mission of some
folk to "save" the terminally ill from their own folly, as if the
desire to not exist in debilitating pain was a deviant way of thinking (par.2).
Seshen (2000)
further states that man considers himself above the animals, but we are unique
in our "moral obligation" to prolong the suffering of others. Pets
are mercifully put to sleep, but our fellow human being has not even a say in
the matter. Death with dignity has been relegated to the courts, rather than
the individual where it belongs (par.4). Seshen (2000) finally warns that our
rights as free people to follow our own conscience are being taken away more
each day, and we must open our eyes (par.5). Benson (1999) does not
particularly encourage us when he states that with the graying of the Baby Boom
generation, end-of-life issues are likely to remain on the public stage for
many years to come (par.4).
According to an
article by USA Today (1998-JUL-6) physician assisted suicide is:
·
Permitted
in Oregon under very tightly controlled conditions.
·
Not
specifically mentioned in the laws of North Carolina, Utah and Wyoming.
·
Criminalized
in the remaining states (Religious Tolerance, 2001).
Fortunately,
there are some encouraging developments that shine a somewhat positive light on
the chances of euthanasia finally being excepted as a right for every human
being. One of these hopeful signs, according to Okwu, is, that, as the battle
over assisted suicide gains momentum, advocates are finding support in unusual
places -- federal courts (1996). There are now 12 states that let doctors
legally help patients die (Okwu, 1996). Okwu continues, New York law already
lets doctors remove patients from life support systems, if the patient or a
guardian has given prior consent (1996)”.
Another proof of
the maturing perception on euthanasia is the statement made by Benson (1999)
that in two cross-national studies conducted in 1981 and 1990, more Americans
express negative judgments about suicide than about euthanasia (questions
21-22). During the trend's decade, the proportion that saw euthanasia as
"never" justified (points 1-2 on a 10-point scale) dropped from 47
percent to 36 percent, although few felt the practice was "always"
justified (points 9-10) (par.19).
Every now and
then an attempt is made to alert modern society about the destructive course it
has taken. Like Ishmael, the movie Instinct can be seen as a wake up call that
can either be ignored or noticed.
Instinct, based
on Daniel Quinn’s novel Ishmael, shows the story of a brilliant primatologist,
Dr. Ethan Powell, who finds his truth in the jungles of Rwanda. The reviewing
website on this movie exclaims that Powell's truth was derived from years of
studying mountain gorillas -- to the point where he was living among them in
the wild, and accepted as one of their own (Movieweb.com, 1999). Powell adapts
to the free way of living that these gorillas teach him. His most eye-opening
experience is the newly gained perception that the world he was raised in is a
“Taker world”, where the only thing that matters is power and control. When a
search- troop attacks the gorillas, Powell turns against humanity and kills
many of the attackers before he is captured.
Held captive in a prison for the criminally insane, Powell, who has not
spoken in years, is visited for treatment by psychiatrist Theo Caulder. The
young Dr. Caulder's ambition drives him to risk everything and put his career
on the line in order to understand the actions of this headline-gripping madman.
The movie shows the touching metamorphoses in the ambitious psychiatrist, while
he succeeds in persuading Powell to talk to him. Powell starts to share his
memories of Rwanda and teaches Caulder about the "Takers" and
"Leavers" and a kind of revisionist history of mankind, how we went
wrong and how we got to the place we are. As Caulder begins the task of trying
to understand Powell, he becomes overwhelmed by his story and the tables turn
so that instead of psychiatrist and prisoner, it becomes student and teacher
(Movieweb.com, 1999).
The stunning
realization that the freedom in our society decreases as the order increases;
will most likely become apparent to everyone who reads the book “Ishmael”, or
views the movie “Instinct”. These two sources emphasize the necessity to regain
our awareness on the importance of natural laws, and provide the reader/viewer
insight in the fact that the rules and regulations of our society have become
wedged to a ridiculous point. The Taker-culture, created by religious believes
that “man is the ruler of the world” has led to a gruesome point where mankind
behaves as if there is no God. The most interesting part of it all is, that we
defend our acts by teaching our fellow humans that this is what God wants!
The legal
decision that a man should be killed because he did something wrong, as
discussed in this paper, provides the proof needed for the abovementioned
assumptions. McVeigh’s act was gruesome, but so were the bombings of Hiroshima,
Nagasaki, Vietnam, and Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of innocent people
were killed by a government that exclaimed, “They cannot be held responsible if
children die (McVeigh, 1998, par.7)”. One wonders if the freedom that is
provided in purchasing guns, combined with the example set by the government
when penalizing countries that don’t obey the wishes of the U.S., does not
create the perfect climate for a large number of McVeigh’s to come!
The fact that the will of a terminally
ill person to end his life with dignity is ignored illustrates a painful lack
of – and disrespect toward – the basic freedom of humanity. One wonders what is
wrong with the Dutch liberal perception on euthanasia, whereby the right to
choose for death with dignity is permitted when 1) the patient makes a voluntary
request, 2) the request must be well considered, 3) the wish for death is
durable, 4) the patient is in unacceptable suffering, and 5) the physician has
consulted a colleague who agrees the proposed course of action (Docker, 1996,
par.5).
Our Taker culture is in trouble, but may
be saved if we can reach the point of maturity in our thinking by realizing
that many of our boundaries are inherited by beliefs that date back to a time
in which our knowledge about our place in the universe was far more limited –
and maybe therefore more arrogant – than it is, or should be, now.
Fortunately,
there are hopeful trends. Polls show that an increasing number of people on a
global scale think that euthanasia should be legalized. An increasing number of
people on the same scale think that the death penalty is “barbaric.” Therefore,
if what we call “barbaric” is assumed to be the “Leaver-culture,” we would be
better off by starting to adapt some of their life-styles, in which the most
precious gift is still valued: freedom. We could start by realizing that
“freedom is just on the other side of the fences we create for ourselves”
(Instinct).
References
Battin,
M. P. (2000). On the structure of the euthanasia debate: Observations provoked
by a near-perfect for-and-against book. Journal of Health Politics, Policy
and Law [On-line, Pepperdine's electronic database: Proquest], 25(2),
415-430.
Benson,
J. M. (1999). The polls--trends: End-of-life issues. Public Opinion
Quarterly [On-line, Pepperdine's electronic database: Proquest], 63(2),
263-277.
CBS-Channel2.
(1997). McVeigh Formally Sentenced to Die -- Convicted Bomber Speaks Briefly
to Court Before Sentencing, [On-line]. CBS Channel2000.com. Available:
http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-970814-114423.html [2001, June 14,
2001].
CBS-Channel2.
(1997, June 13, 1997). McVeigh Sentenced to Death, [On-line].
Channel2000.com. Available:
http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-970613-163514.html [2001, June 14,
2001].
CNN.com.
(2001, June 14, 2001). Timothy McVeigh dead, [On-line]. CNN. Available:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.01/index.html [2001, June 14, 2001].
DiPego,
G., & Quinn, D. (1999). Instinct. In J. Turtletaub (Ed.).: Touchstone
Pictures.
Docker,
C. (1996, February 8, 2001). Euthanasia in Holland, [On-line]. Vess.
Available: http://www.euthanasia.org/dutch.html [2001, June 21, 2001].
Frankford,
D. M. (2000). Book review editor's introduction. Journal of Health Politics,
Policy and Law [On-line, Pepperdine's electronic database: Proquest], 25(2),
377-378.
McVeigh,
T. J. (1998, May 29, 1998). Timothy McVeigh's Essay, [On-line]. The
Associated Press. Available: http://www.kwtv.com/news/bombing/mcveigh-essay.htm
[2001, June, 21, 2001].
Movieweb.com.
(1999, Unknown). Instinct, [On-line]. Movieweb.com. Available:
http://movieweb.com/movie/instinct/index.html [2001, June 14, 2001].
Okwu,
M. (1996, April 7, 1996). Legal support for assisted suicide growing,
[On-line]. CNN.com. Available: http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/07/assisted.suicide/
[2001, June 14, 2001].
Quinn,
D. (1992). Ishmael.: Bantam Books, Incorporated.
Romano,
L. (2001, June 11, 2001). McVeigh Executed for Oklahoma City Bombing,
[On-Line]. The Washington Post. Available:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/aroundthenation/okbomb/A50345-2001Jun11.html
[2001, June 25, 2001].
Russakoff,
D., & Kovaleski, S. F. (1995, Sunday, July 2, 1995). An Ordinary Boy's
Extraordinary Rage, [On-line]. The Washington Post. Available:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/mcveigh1.htm
[2001, 06/13/2001].
Sarat,
A. (2001, May 5, 2001). DOES TIMOTHY MCVEIGH DESERVE A PAINLESS DEATH?
Lethal Injection And The Illusion That An Execution Is Not Really A Killing,
[On-line]. FindLaw.com. Available: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010503_sarat.html
[2001, June 14, 2001].
Seshen.
(2000, November 08, 2000). The Right to Die, [On-line]. lycianwicca.org
(the lycian sanctuary). Available: http://www.lycianwicca.org/rightto.htm
[2001, June 15, 2001].
Tolerance,
R. (2001, April 26, 2001). EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: ALL
SIDES OF THE ISSUES, [On-line]. Religioustolerance.org. Available:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm [2001, June 14, 2001].
UB
Center for Clinical Ethics, & Humanities in Healthcare (2000, October 25,
2000). U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Physician Assisted Suicide Cases,
[On-line]. UB Center for Clinical Ethics and Humanities in health Care.
Available: http://wings.buffalo.edu/faculty/research/bioethics/court.html
[2001, June 14, 2001].
Uhlmann, M. M.
(1996). The Legal Logic of Euthanasia, [On-line]. First Things.com.
Available: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9606/uhlmann.html [2001, June
14, 2001].
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT (1999). United States v. McVeigh,
[On-line]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Available:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document? [2001, June 14, 2001].