How may the Christian faith inform the debate over euthanasia?

How may the Christian faith inform the debate over euthanasia? How may the Christian faith inform the debate over euthanasia? The concept of â€Å"free will† is one of the defining characteristics of Christianity and therefore the ability that Christians possess to make choices about their lives is sacrosanct. It is also pertinent to note in introduction that Christians believe that death is not the end of life but the beginning of life with God and as a consequence it can be argued that from a Christian point of view death is not to be feared. On the other hand it can be argued that it may be better to die in peace and with dignity than to live with terrible pain which is likely to transfer in the form of extreme anxiety to your friends and relatives. It is submitted that in order for euthanasia to take place it is necessary to engage the assistance of a third party. This is the fundamental difference between euthanasia and suicide. One essential problem with this, in terms of Christianity in particular, is that the sick individual may not have the right to ask another person to help take his or her life. The sixth commandment is straightforward:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Thou shall not kill. On the strength of this first touch analysis euthanasia appears to contradict the Christian faith. Many Christians would argue that the suffering party must have faith and trust in God and in the future that he has for him or her. The Bible informs and guides Christians as to the moral and religious decisions they must take as they live their life. Although it is true that the Bible does not expressly state that euthanasia is wrong it does stipulate, as stated above, that thou shall not kill and another commandment sets down the rule that one should love ones neighbour. At first sight these fundamental rules imply that euthanasia is contrary to the Christian ethic. However, the rule love thy neighbour was addressed by Jesus himself in his answer to the Pharisees, the chief religious sect of the day, when He was questioned about the greatest commandment in the Law. The Pharisees had strenuously classified all the various laws and accorded them relative degrees of importance and their aim was to test Jesus. His answer was glorious in its simplicity: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. Therefore, Christianity dictates not just that we are to love our neighbour, but that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves. It is submitted that this would appear to open the door to euthanasia on the grounds of pure Christian dogma, because there are many among us that would choose a dignified death for ourselves rather than deteriorating life in great pain. However, despite these putative interpretations of the words of Jesus Christ himself, the present day thinking of the mainstream Christian church appears to oppose assisted suicide in all its forms. Christianity and Euthanasia The modern majority or mainline Christian attitude to issue of assisted suicide is relatively straightforward. Euthanasia is opposed. As is the case with regards to the abortion issue, most Christians would agree that it is wrong to take the life of another human. Christians believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception until the intervention of natural death. Something in excess of sixty passages of scripture in the Bible refer to the sanctity of life, in particular the aforesaid Thou shalt not kill. Christians believe that God is the giver and taker of life. As a consequence they believe that God’s will in matters of life and death takes precedence over any desire that man may express. The fact that the so-called right to die movement would change laws so that doctors or relatives could directly and intentionally terminate another persons life flies in the face of this basic Christian belief in God’s authority. The Christian view is that God has endowed mankind with certain unalienable rights, and that that the first and most important of these is the right to life itself. From a Christian perspective all other God-given human rights are worthless, unless the right to life is held supreme. There is an argument that everyone has a right to do with their own body as they see fit, but the majority Christian view appears to be that this is not persuasive. Although euthanasia might be seen to be a private, victimless act it is not committed in a vacuum and Christians believe that the act would have far reaching â€Å"spill-over† effects for society at large. Given that euthanasia affords one person the power to engineer the death of another person it is a public matter which, in line with mainline Christian thinking, could well result in abuse and/or the steady erosion of care for the most vulnerable people. It is a Christian belief that today’s society values only healthy and comfortable life and faith dictates that this is a narrow-minded attitude. Christians assert that God’s plan to make us whole is such as to ensure that we experience all aspects of life, from good to bad in health and in sickness, from the springtime and opportunity of youth to the austerity and trails of the winter that old age inevitably brings. Christians argue that modern medical treatments for pain reduction offer most dying patients effective relief which renders the avoidance of pain as a reason for mercy killing nugatory as a medical or moral argument. It is submitted that it is central to the Christian ethos that God has a reason for everything that man can experience, including pain and suffering. Christians would contend, for example that many people given time to contemplate as they ail on their deathbed have been brought closer to Christ, and that the experience of seeing someone in such a position may bring the observer closer to Christ. It is a trite observation that the terminally ill and often, merely the elderly, may be concerned about becoming a burden to their family or to the greater community and those with responsibility for delivering care may come to resent the time, effort and expense entailed in the discharge of their duty. However, the Christian perspective on this is very clear, and steels the debate on euthanasia generally. The Christian view is well articulated by Gilbert Meilaender in the following extract:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Learning not to resent the claims on our time and energy is likely to be the work of a lifetime. If we decline to learn the lesson, however, we cease to live in the kind of community that deserves to be called a family, and we are ill prepared to live in the community for which God has redeemed us a community in which no one stands on the basis of her rights, and all live by that shared love Christians call charity† Christians may also contend that ‘quality of life’ should not to be measured by physical health but only by a person’s relationship with God. The natural inference is that sickness is an irrelevant consideration and one which should not be used as a justification for killing. Euthanasia, unlike abortion, is referred to, albeit tangentially, in the Bible. There are two such instances in the Old Testament. In Judges Abimelech pleaded with his armour-bearer to put him to death after he had been hit on the head by a millstone because he did not want to suffer the shame of being killed by the woman who had dropped the stone on him. In the second reference in Samuel, Saul, the first king of Israel, asked to be put to death after he had attempted suicide:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I am still alive. So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive.† The Amalekite narrator of this story is then put to death by David, Sauls successor and the point is made that Saul had contradicted the word of God and lost the right to lead his people as a consequence. In neither instance is the notion of euthanasia treated with approval, but no specific lesson is clarified. The Roman Catholic Perspective It is submitted that the Roman Catholic Church opposes the practice of euthanasia. Roman Catholics apply the principle of Natural Law to assisted suicide just as they do in the case of abortion, where a similar prohibitive stance is taken. As a consequence Catholics believe that all life is regulated and ordered by God and that all events (including episodes of great suffering) occur just as God intends. The Roman Catholic Church thus teaches that euthanasia runs contrary to Gods will on the rationale that such human intervention in the process of death is unnatural. Indeed assisted suicide is deemed to constitute a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets down the following implacable principle:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Thus an act, or an omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in a order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder greatly contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.’ This stance is softened to a small degree by the provisions made in 2278 and 2279 of the Catechism. 2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of over-zealous treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; ones inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.  2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. However it is submitted that these provisos, while well rationalised and well founded, do not alter the fact that in terms of general principle the Catholic church stands fore square against the concept of euthanasia. Current Fears of Christianity: From the Right to Die†¦ to a Duty to Die? In March 2004 Lord Joffe introduced the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill into the House of Lords. The Bill aims to empower competent adults suffering a terminal illness to obtain medical assistance to die at his or her own considered and persistent request. In simple terms, the Bill aims to legalise voluntary euthanasia in the United Kingdom. In October 2005 leaders of the primary faiths of the United Kingdom sent a joint letter to both Houses of Parliament in an attempt to set out their position against the legalisation of any form of euthanasia prior to a scheduled debate on the proposed Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in the House of Lords. As indicated above, signatories to the letter included not just Christian leaders but leaders of other faiths. The Bishop of Southwark of the Church of England the Rev. Tom Butler was joined by, among others, His Eminence Archbishop Gregorios of Thyateira and Great Britain, the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Principal of the Muslim College and Chair of Muslim Law Sharia Council Sheikh Dr M.A. Zaki Badawi, General Director of Evangelical Alliance UK Joel Edwards and the Archbishop of Cardiff of the Catholic Church in Great Britain Peter Smith. The letter stated that:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   We, the undersigned, hold all human life to be sacred and worthy of the utmost respect and note with concern that repeated attempts are being made to persuade Parliament to change the law on intentional killing so as to allow assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, The central message of the letter was, as has been discussed above, that the very sick are often vulnerable and they may well feel that they are a burden to their family and friends. The signatories to the letter wanted to make the point that legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia might have the effect of putting pressure on such individuals to ‘do the decent thing’ and request early death for the sake of the convenience, economic well being and happiness of those left behind. The letter warned that the so-called right to die could thus evolve subtly over time to become an unspoken duty to die in which considerations such as those described above could come to exercise undue influence over the decision-making process. The religious leaders argued in the alternative that the focus should be on improved palliative care, stressing that medical science is taking great strides in relieving the range of symptoms endured by those suffering from a terminal illness and emphasising the increasing sophistication of support systems for families. Moreover the letter suggested NHS reforms and innovations to buttress these developing areas. After a full debate in the House of Lords on 10 October 2005, Lord Joffe tabled a further Bill to introduce so-called physician assisted suicide. The Christian Charity CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) has launched a high-profile campaign, known as the Life Valued campaign, to oppose this suggested legislation. CARE Chairman Lyndon Bowring has proffered a biblical foundation for the campaign. He stated: ‘We have been given a duty to be God’s stewards†¦ It’s right to care for creation – and even more so to care for the pinnacle of his creation†¦Stand with those in Parliament who are speaking out in God’s name for the sanctity of human life.’ Concluding Comments It appears that the majority view among the modern custodians of the Christian faith, or at least the view that is most forcefully expressed, is that euthanasia is to be opposed in all its forms as contrary to the fundamental tenet of the sanctity of human life. There is a view that the rule that one must love one’s neighbour as oneself can be interpreted to mean that an act to limit the suffering of another could be justified because the same decision might well be taken on one’s own behalf and in one’s own interests. Moreover the rule that thou shalt not kill, which appears to set down a clear and simple prohibition, must also be subject to contextual interpretation. If the rule is to be followed to the letter then the Christian practice of killing animals for food must be thrown into question. In the words of Jesus: ‘Thou shalt not kill any living thing, for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man taketh it away.’ Ho wever, this rule must surely be subject to caveats since even Jesus Himself fed his followers with fish. It could be argued that killing to relieve suffering is a far higher motive than killing for food, given in particular that it is possible to survive without consuming animals. Indeed the words expressed by Jesus are impossible to follow to the letter, because even plant life is living matter. We cannot eat rocks or sand and we cannot survive on thin air, therefore there simply must be room for the practical interpretation of the sixth commandment. It follows that if we can justify killing to fill our dining table, we can surely justify killing to alleviate pain and suffering, where such is motivated by nothing but love and compassion for the victim. This is a personal conclusion. Although it is one drawn direct from the stated words and actions of Jesus Christ Himself, it is conceded that it is not the majority view of Christian church today. The principle of the sanctity of human life is one of the highest of human civilization, and it is easy to see why guardians and proponents of the Christian faith wish to strive so hard to protect it from erosion in any and all circumstances. In a perfect world this commentator would agree with this view but this is not a perfect world and there are no perfect rules at least it is submitted there are no rules perfect in application in every conceivable instance. Two thousand years ago, when Jesus delivered his teachings and the Christian faith was born, medical science was in its infancy. In those days terminal illnesses progressed at a far more rapid pace and the fraught questions that now confront twenty first century society, which has acquired the technology to prolong life over long p eriods, were seldom if ever posed. As a consequence, it is perhaps a pregnable exercise to seek moral or ethical guidance from teaching and faith established in an age that predates the issue now under debate and cannot possibly accommodate it. In plain terms, the Bible is a contemporary text. It simply was not written with the issue of euthanasia, in the context of twenty first century technological progress, in mind. The foregoing analysis illustrates the depth, sensitivity and difficulty of the issue of euthanasia. Such is only amplified when one considers religious perspectives, such as the Christian teachings and ethical framework discussed in this paper. The Christian faith can be applied to inform and enrich the debate on euthanasia in multifarious ways, and it can in theory be invoked with force by each opposing camp. Given the difficulty in interpreting God’s word, perhaps it is time for man to take sole responsibility for the decision, and perhaps it is man’s justification, not a faith-based rationale that should prevail. That is not to say the decision should not be guided by Christian principles, the question of euthanasia is one deserving of the utmost good faith and scrutiny, but perhaps mans’ ultimate assumption of responsibility is part of God’s overarching plan. This could be said to be the flowering of the free will that, in the Christian tradition, He gifted to us. One thing is certain: it lies within God’s power to intervene to guide the debate on euthanasia to His favoured conclusion. In the face of a morally and ethically challenging issue such as assisted suicide, Christians can draw solace and sustenance from that fundamental belief. BIBLIOGRAPHY The Bible Authorized version of King James ‘England Faith Leaders Lobby Parliament Against Euthanasia’, The Christian Post, October 10, 2005: http://www.christianpost.com/article/europe/550/section/england.faith.leaders.lobby.parliament.against.euthanasia/1.htm Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] 8 January 2004, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/017/2004017.htm Dramatic Launch for Anti-Euthanasia Campaign, Christian Action Research and Education, 29 November 2005: http://www.care.org.uk/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=31154. Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Pro-Abortion Madness: The abortion lobby has abandoned its rationales amid pro-life gains, Ted Olsen, Christianity Today, September 2004, Vol. 48, No. 9, Page 82. Christian Thinking About Advance Medical Directives, Meilaender, G, Christian Century 113 S 11-18 1996: 854-857.

Research on the Effects of Media Violence

Whether or not exposure to media violence causes increased levels of aggression and violence in young people is the perennial question of media effects research. Some experts, like University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann, argue that fifty years of evidence show â€Å"that exposure to media violence causes children to behave more aggressively and affects them as adults years later. Others, like Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, maintain that â€Å"the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it. † Many Studies, Many Conclusions Andrea Martinez at the University of Ottawa conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 1994. She concluded that the lack of consensus about media effects reflects three â€Å"grey areas† or constraints contained in the research itself.First, me dia violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation.Second, researchers disagree over the type of relationship the data supports. Some argue that exposure to media violence causes aggression. Others say that the two are associated, but that there is no causal connection. (That both, for instance, may be caused by some third factor. ) And others say the data supports the conclusion that there is no relationship between the two at all. Third, even those who agree that there is a connection between media violence and aggression disagree about how the one effects the other.Some say that the mechanism is a psychological one, rooted in the ways we learn. For example, Huesmann argues that children develop â€Å"cognitive scripts† that guide their own behaviour by imitating the actions of media heroes. As they watch violent shows, children learn to internalize scripts that use violence as an appropriate method of problem-solving. Other researchers argue that it is the physiological effects of media violence that cause aggressive behaviour. Exposure to violent imagery is linked to increased heart rate, faster respiration and higher blood pressure.Some think that this simulated â€Å"fight-or-flight† response predisposes people to act aggressively in the real world. Still others focus on the ways in which media violence primes or cues pre-existing aggressive thoughts and feelings. They argue that an individual’s desire to strike out is justified by media images in which both the hero and the villain use violence to seek revenge, often without consequences. In her final report to the CRTC, Martinez concluded that most studies support â€Å"a positive, though weak, relation between exposure to television violence and aggressive behaviour. Although that relationship cannot be â€Å"confirmed systematically,† she agrees with Dutch researcher Tom Van der Voot who argues that it would be illogical to conclude that â€Å"a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur, or only to occur under certain circumstances. † What the Researchers Are Saying The lack of consensus about the relationship between media violence and real-world aggression has not impeded ongoing research.Here’s a sampling of conclusions drawn to date, from the various research strands: Research strand: Children who consume high levels of  media violence are more likely to be aggressive in the real world In 1956, researchers to ok to the laboratory to compare the behaviour of 24 children watching TV. Half watched a violent episode of the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, and the other 12 watched the non-violent cartoon The Little Red Hen. During play afterwards, the researchers observed that the children who watched the violent cartoon were much more likely to hit other children and break toys.Six years later, in 1963, professors A. Badura, D. Ross and S. A. Ross studied the effect of exposure to real-world violence, television violence, and cartoon violence. They divided 100 preschool children into four groups. The first group watched a real person shout insults at an inflatable doll while hitting it with a mallet. The second group watched the incident on television. The third watched a cartoon version of the same scene, and the fourth watched nothing. When all the children were later exposed to a frustrating ituation, the first three groups responded with more aggression than the control group. The children who watched the incident on television were just as aggressive as those who had watched the real person use the mallet; and both were more aggressive than those who had only watched the cartoon. Over the years, laboratory experiments such as these have consistently shown that exposure to violence is associated with increased heartbeat, blood pressure and respiration rate, and a greater willingness to administer electric shocks to inflict pain or punishment on others.However, this line of enquiry has been criticized because of its focus on short term results and the artificial nature of the viewing environment. Other scientists have sought to establish a connection between media violence and aggression outside the laboratory. For example, a number of surveys indicate that children and young people who report a preference for violent entertainment also score higher on aggression indexes than those who watch less violent shows. L. Rowell Huesmann reviewed studies conducted in Australia, Fi nland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States.He reports, â€Å"the child most likely to be aggressive would be the one who (a) watches violent television programs most of the time, (b) believes that these shows portray life just as it is, [and] (c) identifies strongly with the aggressive characters in the shows. † A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive behaviours from TV.However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours — 87 per cent of kids do so. Recent research is exploring the effect of new media on children’s behaviour. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University reviewed dozens of studies of video gamers. In 2001, they reported that children and young people who play violent video games, even for short periods, are more likely to behave aggressively in the real world; and that both aggressive and non-aggressive children are negatively affected by playing.In 2003, Craig Anderson and Iowa State University colleague Nicholas Carnagey and Janie Eubanks of the Texas Department of Human Services reported that violent music lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings among 500 college students. They concluded, â€Å"There are now good theoretical and empirical reasons to expect effects of music lyrics on aggressive behavior to be similar to the well-studied effects of exposure to TV and movie violence and the more recent research efforts on violent video games. Research Strand: Children who watch high levels of media violence are at increased risk of aggressive behaviour as adults In 1960, University of Michigan Professor Leonard Eron studied 856 grade three students living in a semi-rural community in Columbia County, New York, and found that the children who watched violent television at home behav ed more aggressively in school. Eron wanted to track the effect of this exposure over the years, so he revisited Columbia County in 1971, when the children who participated in the 1960 study were 19 years of age.He found that boys who watched violent TV when they were eight were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers. When Eron and Huesmann returned to Columbia County in 1982, the subjects were 30 years old. They reported that those participants who had watched more violent TV as eight-year-olds were more likely, as adults, to be convicted of serious crimes, to use violence to discipline their children, and to treat their spouses aggressively. Professor Monroe Lefkowitz published similar findings in 1971.Lefkowitz interviewed a group of eight-year-olds and found that the boys who watched more violent TV were more likely to act aggressively in the real world. When he interviewed the same boys ten years later, he found that the more violence a boy watched at eight, th e more aggressively he would act at age eighteen. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Johnson has found that the effect is not limited to violent shows. Johnson tracked 707 families in upstate New York for 17 years, starting in 1975.In 2002, Johnson reported that children who watched one to three hours of television each day when they were 14 to 16 years old were 60 per cent more likely to be involved in assaults and fights as adults than those who watched less TV. Kansas State University professor John Murray concludes, â€Å"The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behavior when the young boy becomes a young man. However, this line of research has attracted a great deal of controversy. Pullitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes has attacked Eron’s work, arguing that his conclusions are based on an insignifica nt amount of data. Rhodes claims that Eron had information about the amount of TV viewed in 1960 for only 3 of the 24 men who committed violent crimes as adults years later. Rhodes concludes that Eron’s work is â€Å"poorly conceived, scientifically inadequate, biased and sloppy if not actually fraudulent research. Guy Cumberbatch, head of the Communications Research Group, a U. K. social policy think tank, has equally harsh words for Johnson’s study. Cumberbatch claims Johnson’s group of 88 under-one-hour TV watchers is â€Å"so small, it's aberrant. † And, as journalist Ben Shouse points out, other critics say that Johnson’s study â€Å"can’t rule out the possibility that television is just a marker for some unmeasured environmental or psychological influence on both aggression and TV habits. Research Strand: The introduction of television into a community leads to an increase in violent behaviour Researchers have also pursued the link b etween media violence and real life aggression by examining communities before and after the introduction of television. In the mid 1970s, University of British Columbia professor Tannis McBeth Williams studied a remote village in British Columbia both before and after television was introduced. She found that two years after TV arrived, violent incidents had increased by 160 per cent.Researchers Gary Granzberg and Jack Steinbring studied three Cree communities in northern Manitoba during the 1970s and early 1980s. They found that four years after television was introduced into one of the communities, the incidence of fist fights and black eyes among the children had increased significantly. Interestingly, several days after an episode of Happy Days aired, in which one character joined a gang called the Red Demons, children in the community created rival gangs, called the Red Demons and the Green Demons, and the conflict between the two seriously disrupted the local school.Universit y of Washington Professor Brandon Centerwall noted that the sharp increase in the murder rate in North America in 1955 occurred eight years after television sets began to enter North American homes. To test his hypothesis that the two were related, he examined the murder rate in South Africa where, prior to 1975, television was banned by the government. He found that twelve years after the ban was lifted, murder rates skyrocketed. University of Toronto Professor Jonathan Freedman has criticized this line of research.He points out that Japanese television has some of the most violent imagery in the world, and yet Japan has a much lower murder rate than other countries, including Canada and the United States, which have comparatively less violence on TV. Research Strand: Media violence stimulates fear in some children A number of studies have reported that watching media violence frightens young children, and that the effects of this may be long lasting. In 1998, Professors Singer, Sl ovak, Frierson and York surveyed 2,000 Ohio students in grades three through eight.They report that the incidences of psychological trauma (including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress) increased in proportion to the number of hours of television watched each day. A 1999 survey of 500 Rhode Island parents led by Brown University professor Judith Owens revealed that the presence of a television in a child’s bedroom makes it more likely that the child will suffer from sleep disturbances. Nine per cent of all the parents surveyed reported that their children have nightmares because of a television show at least once a week.Tom Van der Voort studied 314 children aged nine through twelve in 1986. He found that although children can easily distinguish cartoons, westerns and spy thrillers from reality, they often confuse realistic programmes with the real world. When they are unable to integrate the violence in these shows because they can’t follow the plot, they a re much more likely to become anxious. This is particularly problematic because the children reported that they prefer realistic programmes, which they equate with fun and excitement.And, as Jacques de Guise reported in 2002, the younger the child, the less likely he or she will be able to identify violent content as violence. In 1999, Professors Joanne Cantor and K. Harrison studied 138 university students, and found that memories of frightening media images continued to disturb a significant number of participants years later. Over 90 per cent reported they continued to experience fright effects from images they viewed as children, ranging from sleep disturbances to steadfast avoidance of certain situations.Research Strand: Media violence desensitizes people to real violence A number of studies in the 1970’s showed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims. For example, Professors V. B. Cline, R. G. Croft, and S. Courrier studied young boys over a two-year period. In 1973, they reported that boys who watch more than 25 hours of television per week are significantly less likely to be aroused by real world violence than those boys who watch 4 hours or less per week.When researchers Fred Molitor and Ken Hirsch revisited this line of investigation in 1994, their work confirmed that children are more likely to tolerate aggressive behaviour in the real world if they first watch TV shows or films that contain violent content. Research Strand: People who watch a lot of media violence tend to believe that the world is more dangerous than it is in reality George Gerbner has conducted the longest running study of television violence. His seminal research suggests that heavy TV viewers tend to perceive the world in ways that are consistent with the images on TV.As viewers’ perceptions of the world come to conform with the depictions they s ee on TV, they become more passive, more anxious, and more fearful. Gerbner calls this the â€Å"Mean World Syndrome. † Gerbner’s research found that those who watch greater amounts of television are more likely to: * overestimate their risk of being victimized by crime * believe their neighbourhoods are unsafe * believe â€Å"fear of crime is a very serious personal problem† * assume the crime rate is increasing, even when it is not Andre Gosselin, Jacques de Guise and Guy Paquette decided to test Gerbner’s theory in the Canadian context in 1997.They surveyed 360 university students, and found that heavy television viewers are more likely to believe the world is a more dangerous place. However, they also found heavy viewers are not more likely to actually feel more fearful. Research Strand: Family attitudes to violent content are more important than the images themselves A number of studies suggest that media is only one of a number of variables that put children at risk of aggressive behaviour.For example, a Norwegian study that included 20 at-risk teenaged boys found that the lack of parental rules regulating what the boys watched was a more significant predictor of aggressive behaviour than the amount of media violence they watched. It also indicated that exposure to real world violence, together with exposure to media violence, created an â€Å"overload† of violent events. Boys who experienced this overload were more likely to use violent media images to create and consolidate their identities as members of an anti-social and marginalized group.On the other hand, researchers report that parental attitudes towards media violence can mitigate the impact it has on children. Huesmann and Bacharach conclude, â€Å"Family attitudes and social class are stronger determinants of attitudes toward aggression than is the amount of exposure to TV, which is nevertheless a significant but weaker predictor. † Undoubtedly that th e media has an effect on our lives. The debate that rages is whether or not the media has a negative and discernible effect on us as human beings. How much does the media effect out actions, our houghts, our decisions and, in general, our lives? We live in a society which praises individuality and freedom, and therefore to most people it is a scary thought that an outside source, such as the media, has such a large effect on our lives, and therefore it is no surprise that most people do not believe that the media has a strong effect on them. But when it comes to children, the debate becomes more personal. It is common knowledge that children are very impressionable, and that the people they meet, their parents, and teachers can have a huge impact in the lives of Children.I myself can attribute much of my current interests and behavior to the effect my parents had on my when I was a child. Today, though, many children are in poor families (the child poverty rate in America is now aro und 35%), and, as a result, many children often do not have parents that reside at home. Often both parents work long hours, and the children have nothing else to occupy their time except for the media, especially television media. How does what the child sees on TV effect his or her behavior?The real question that faces society is does the increasing amount of violence and sex on TV effect children? My personal opinion is that violence and sex in the media greatly effects a child's development. The amount of sex and violence on TV today dwarfs what was on when I was little. Does a day not pass when their is a story about a child killing another child, or an even younger girl becoming pregnant? When I go an elementary or middle school I am shocked at the types of clothing that the children wear, and the way that they talk and act.Even elementary school children know about things that I did not learn about till I was in High School, and in my opinion things they should not know ab Ki ndergarten teachers in many school across the country, often in poor immigrant neighborhoods, no longer get to deal with innocent, wide eyed six year olds, but instead have to become conflict resolvers between children who see violence and intimidation as the only way to solve any problems. Teachers and Parents cannot compete with television.A study by the Mediascope Institute found that many children have already, by age six, spent more time watching TV than time they will spend talking to their fathers in their entire lifetime. Dean Geoffrey Cowan spoke in class about how the media does not effect everyone uniformly. He said that the effects of violence in the media may be stronger on some individuals than others, but that this effect is still significant. I agree with Dean Cowan, and I want to add that this effect is stronger in younger children than in any other age group.Many students in the class did not seem to believe that the media had a very strong effect on their lives an d as a result seem to assume that this effect is uniformly weak, and unfortunately I believe that it is thinking like that is making it so difficult for us as a society to tackle this problem. Studies have shown that the effect of violence in the media on children can be small, leading to more violent behavior in maybe 15% of children. But other studies have shown that this effect can be greater when children are â€Å"raised by the media†.It is hard to say whether a certain child will become more violent or aggressive due to the media, and I believe that other factors contribute to violence in children, such as problems at home, the influence of peers, or lack of a positive source of morals. But as a society we need to make sure that there are options for children in the media so that they do not have to exposed to so much mature content, and I believe that currently the protections in place are terribly inadequate. The effects of our modern media on our children is somethin g that we will not truly know for many years, if ever.History might give us a clue – the parallels between the advent of todays new media and the advent of books show that we could be in for a paradigm societal change. But no other media absorbed ones life in such a passive, complacent way as television and the Internet do to thousands of children. More research needs to be done in this field, but I believe that it is self apparent to everyone that the media does have a large impact on our lives. We determine our identity in relation to the media – our favorite television show, favorite band, favorite book, all are determined by the media to some extent.Ideally, as adults we would learn the skills to discern the effect of media on our lives and learn to control and to resist its temptations. Unfortunately most children and too many adults have not learn these skills. Everyone agrees that in today’s society, television has a significant impact on us all. How it a ffects children is of primary concern, as it is in childhood that we are given the tools we need to become successful, respectful citizens as adults. How exactly does television impact childhood, and what should we do to ensure that that impact is a positive one?Television is one of the first ways in which children learn about gender roles and stereotypes. Although family and peer groups also teach these roles, it is through television that children are inundated with the sex roles and stereotypes that reflect the ideas of a handful of people in charge of creating and programming this medium. Although these portrayals have broadened in the last ten or so years to include more diversity in gender stereotyping, there are still many television icons that denote negative gender images, such as the Bratz.Bratz are a Saturday morning cartoon and a glut of heavily marketed toys and clothing products that represent tweens and early teens as overly sexualized independent young women with att itude. Although I admire the strength and empowerment they embody, I am also incredibly concerned with the revealing clothing, heavy makeup, and defensive postures the characters all seem to take. I can’t help but wonder what a ten-year-old watching these girls would take away as being the feminine traits that they represent.Will she want to identify with the strength and independence or with the heavy-handed sexuality that she sees? Add to that television’s fascination with glamorous girl icons such as Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton, and what are young girls supposed to believe about being a girl? Boys likewise have macho images to imitate—superheroes and wrestlers and sports heroes. What does that teach them about being male? How does the repetition of these images teach boys how to respect others, cooperate, and engage with those around them?These problems with television’s sex and gender stereotypes can only make it more difficult for these children to develop socially and emotionally. Being taught these gender stereotypes may make it almost impossible for some children to break out of those roles and become comfortable with all their traits and individualities. If a boy is taught by television that men are always strong, what does he do with his own characteristics that defy that stereotype—does he continue to build his nurturing qualities or quash them in an effort to fit in?Do children learn that relationships only work when both people are behaving according to television’s ideas of their gender stereotypes, or do children learn to accept and respect people along the entire continuum of gender traits? If children are lost in this quagmire of conflicting information about who they should be and how they should act, clearly they will not be able to develop the strong self-esteem they need to be successful, either at school or in relationships. There is a strong bond between all three of these developmental area s.There are lots of arguments made that television is a bane to the moral development of children. Violent television, especially, has been examined in over 1000 studies and reviews, and has been found guilty on the charges of increasing fear and aggression in children who watch too much violent. However, in many shows and in children’s programming especially, morality is key, with the entire story line being written around one character’s moral dilemma and the healthy resolution of that dilemma, offering children a way to see how morality works in action in ways that apply to their lives.Cognitively, there is some ambiguity of the impact of television. There is the argument that television is responsible for the â€Å"dumbing down† of America, that television is responsible for shutting down our brains and acting as a tranquilizer. But there are also a great many good educational and instructional shows that teach children interactively in ways that books simpl y cannot, and a perceptive look at television programs today verses those created twenty years ago reveals that shows have actually gotten more complex, with layers of storytelling and subtle nuances that audiences have to work harder to comprehend.Clearly, television is a powerful tool that can alter a child’s ideas about the world. How those ideas change and how the child changes in response demonstrate how the tool was used. Television can be detrimental to childhood; in fact, too much television watching is strongly correlated with childhood obesity. The time spent in front of the television could often be better spent in other ways—with friends, actively playing, or doing homework—and this often has negative consequences for the child, such as poor relationships or worse performance in school content. However, television watching can also be productive for children.Television can offer children the chance to see other parts of the world and other cultures w ithout having to leave home. Children’s educational programs and documentaries can teach them about animals, science, math, reading—just about any subject the child has an interest in. The key to making the time spent watching television rewarding is the manner in which it is done. If parents take the time to choose carefully the programs they want their children to watch, and then sit down and watch the show with them, asking questions to promote understanding, then that time is highly beneficial for the child.However, if parents don’t take the time to choose the child’s programs and just sit Junior down and let the television act as babysitter, then the time spent watching television will not only probably not teach that child new things, but he will also not be participating in the powerful social interaction he craves. In a 2001 article in The Nation, author Maggie Cutler makes the point that although television viewing is a rite of passage for Americ an kids today, parents need to remember â€Å"the rule of the real†: that real life is always more powerful. A real conversation is always better for children than watching one on television.Parents don’t need to go to the extreme of keeping their children from watching television completely; they just have to keep in mind moderation and attention is best. For parents, the question of whether or not to let a child watch television is like the question of whether or not to let a child eat at McDonald’s. There are potentially good and bad effects of each, and both decisions weigh on a child’s health. A cheeseburger and fries every once in awhile won’t do any lasting damage; nor will an hour of cartoons just for entertainment every now and then.However, a menu with little more than that will cause grave damage to a child’s development physically, emotionally, cognitively, and socially. Negative Impact of Television on Children something with pl ay – dough. Since there is no scope for imaginative games in the lives of busy parents television seems to be the most inexpensive way of filling the gap and playing the role of an ideal baby sitter. Watching WWF fights, is on the other hand watching a show full of thumps, knocks, hurting an opponent, and jumping on senselessly. This program clearly sends out the message that ‘fighting is fun'.If children are constantly brought up in front of a television then reading habits are not instilled in them, and they are not encouraged to participate in outdoor activities. Only the world of television is their own private world. Of course when television replaces human companionship there is also a good chance of the child being influenced by it. Young children cannot process the information which they are imparted by the television, same way as adults. They think that whatever they are watching is true and this may lead to the corruption of their minds if too much violence is viewed by them.Parents should take strict action so they can limit the negative impact of television as much as possible. They should set rules as to what should be watched and what should be avoided. Alternative to television should be provided, for example if a parent starts spending more time with the child, reads books with him or her, indulge in creative games and indoor crafts, there is every possibility that the child will start shunning television for the better means of entertainment provided. To end it, I say that parents attitude towards the children acts as the building block of their futures.

Lies Youve Been Told About Reflextive Essay Samples

Lies You've Been Told About Reflextive Essay Samples Up in Arms About Reflextive Essay Samples? Taking Mr. Martin from the sentence will reveal that myself will not operate. Let's say that you're writing an essay on The significant causes of Road Accidents in your City, it's obvious you're going to develop a couple points. Jack chose to cook Jack a distinctive supper, for instance, sounds unnerving to a native English speaker. Kevin Garnett is my favourite player. What's Actually Happening with Reflextive Essay Samples Wisdom is acquired through reflection of somebody's experience in addition to of the surroundings. As a consequence, you have a dependable supply of writing wisdom round-the-clock. If you don't examine your fundamental thoughts, they will end up habitual. Writing is among the things that I used to hate the most. Writing creative reflective essay can add to the growth of your critical thinking abilities. The introduction or the introductory paragraph is qui te a relevant part of your essay on account of the simple fact it states the principal idea of your composition. Academic papers need you to identify a specific angle to pursue in writing, which is going to be the basis of the paper. Students have a difficult time in writing the essay since they do not understand what approach they'll utilize. For example, a scientist may write a reflective essay at the conclusion of an experiment or a student might be requested to compose a reflective essay at the conclusion of a plan of study or the completion of a person or class undertaking. For instance, if you're writing an essay on How Global Warming can be decreased, it'll be an excellent idea which you take a minute to define what global warming is about in your introductory paragraph. You are able to also stay in contact by means of your writer during the writing process! The time taken for the research work is dependent on the sort of essay you're writing. The Argument About Reflextive Essay Samples You may either opt to support the arguments or ideas in the movie, or concentrate on disputing them. In the home essay or the body, you should recite the whole journey with each minor detail. Since you may see, the notion of the way to compose a reflection essay is versatile and can be managed in a large number of scenarios. A ll writings will be surely made in line with the customer's demands. Finding the Best Reflextive Essay Samples It is preferable to start on the most suitable note as opposed to realizing it later and wasting your time in the practice. Be aware that samples may be used for your reference needs only. Others could have the cognitive ability to accomplish this, but their signals can be difficult to recognise because of physical or sensory issues. You may also do some studying to learn more about the points to discuss as a way to present a logical and compelling review. In the majority of reflective essays, in addition to describing what went right, you will also need to describe what went wrong or what could be made better and how. A reflective essay has to be based on factual stories that could easily complement your writing abilities to guarantee successful outcomes. It is considered as an essay that is used to describe the experience of an individual in a particular situatio n or while working on a particular project or assignment. An excellent reflective essay may be fantastic reflective essay with the appropriate planning. There's no limit of the topics in the event of a reflective essay. To compose an impressive short essay, especially during an examination, you must be in a position to hit the question and offer a straightforward answer while at the very same time observing the correct structure of an essay. The essay can't be written according to standard essay scheme due to the reason that the thesis statements together with conclusions are blurry. There's no ideal solution on the best way to compose an effective essay. There are a lot ofreflective essay examplesin the world wide web but sometimes you might lack penmanship and request skilled help. It's given as a typical school assignment and an important part in an examination collection. For MBA students essay writing is a hard task. There are lots of possible explanations for why students are requested to work in little groups. Based on the approach you may desire to pursue, there are particular considerations about how to compose a r eaction paper to a documentary that you ought to make. Reading samples of response papers is also an additional way by which you can easily learn how to compose a reaction paper to documentary. Anyway, your reaction may also make an overall address to the whole documentary without picking parts. The papers are lots more difficult to write. Reflextive Essay Samples: No Longer a Mystery Hopefully, the next time you sit down to compose an essay, you'll be in a position to finish it in a brief period. Creating a time line is the ideal approach to finish the task in time, thus we decided for each task when it must be completed. Our aim was to produce because many ideas as possible. Manage Your Time Effectively First, you want to rate the time available and the term count you will need to complete for the essay.

Judith Sargent Murray, Early Feminist and Writer

Judith Sargent Murray (May 1, 1751–July 6, 1820) was an early American feminist who wrote essays on  political, social, and religious themes. She was also a gifted poet and dramatist, and her letters, some recently discovered, give insight into her life during and after the American Revolution.  She is especially known for her essays about the American Revolution under the pseudonym The Gleaner and for her feminist essay, On the Equality of the Sexes.   Fast Facts: Judith Sargent Murray Known For: Early feminist essayist, poet, novelist, and dramatistBorn: May 1, 1751 in Gloucester, MassachusettsParents: Winthrop Sargent and Judith SaundersDied: July 6, 1820 in Natchez, MississippiEducation: Tutored at homePublished Works: On the Equality of the Sexes, Sketch of the Present Situation in America, Story of Margaretta, Virtue Triumphant, and The Traveller ReturnedSpouse(s): Captain John Stevens (m. 1769–1786); Rev. John Murray (m. 1788–1809).Children: With John Murray: George (1789) who died as an infant, and a daughter, Julia Maria Murray (1791–1822) Early Life Judith Sargent Murray was born Judith Sargent on May 1, 1751, in Gloucester, Massachusetts, to shipowner and merchant Captain Winthrop Sargent (1727–1793) and his wife Judith Saunders (1731–1793). She was the oldest of the eight Sargent children. At first, Judith was educated at home and learned basic reading and writing. Her brother Winthrop, who was intended to go to Harvard, received a more advanced education at home, but when their parents recognized Judiths exceptional abilities she was allowed to share Winthrops training in classical Greek and Latin. Winthrop went did go on to Harvard, and Judith later noted that she, being female, had no such possibilities. Her first marriage, on October 3, 1769, was to Captain John Stevens, a well-to-do sea captain and trader. They had no children but adopted two of her husbands nieces and one of her own, Polly Odell. Universalism In the 1770s, Judith Stevens turned away from the Calvinism of the Congregational church she was raised in and became involved in Universalism. Calvinists said that only believers could be saved, and nonbelievers were doomed. In contrast, Universalists believed that all human beings could be saved and all people were equal. The movement was brought to Massachusetts by Rev. John Murray, who arrived in Gloucester in 1774, and Judith and her families the Sargents and the Stevens converted to Universalism. Judith Sargent Stevens and John Murray began a long correspondence and respectful friendship: in this she defied custom, which suggested it was suspect for a married woman to correspond with a man who was unrelated to her. By 1775, the Stevens family had fallen into serious  financial difficulties when the American Revolution interfered with shipping and trade, difficulties that may have been heightened by Stevens mismanagement of finances. To help out, Judith began writing; her first poems were written in 1775. Judiths first essay was Desultory Thoughts upon the Utility of Encouraging a Degree of Self-Complacency, Especially in Female Bosoms, which was published in 1784 under the pseudonym Constancia in the Boston periodical, Gentleman and Ladys Town and Country Magazine.  In 1786, Captain Stevens, to avoid debtors prison and in hopes of turning his finances around, sailed to the West Indies, but he died there in 1786. After the death of Captain Stevens, the friendship between John Murray and Judith Stevens blossomed into courtship, and on October 6, 1788, they married.   Travel and a Widening Sphere Judith Sargent Murray accompanied her new husband on many of his preaching tours, and they counted among acquaintances and friends many early leaders of the United States, including John and Abigail Adams, Benjamin Franklins family, and Martha Custis Washington, with whom they sometimes stayed. Her letters describing these visits and her correspondence with friends and relatives are invaluable in understanding the daily life in the federal period of American history. Throughout this period, Judith Sargent Murray wrote poetry, essays, and drama: some biographers suggest the loss of her son in 1790 and her own survival of what would be called postpartum depression today spurred a burst of creativity. Her essay, On the Equality of the Sexes, written in 1779, was finally published in 1790. The essay challenges the prevailing theory that men and women are not intellectually equal, and among all of her writings, that essay established her as an early feminist theorist. She added a letter including her interpretation of the biblical Adam and Eve story, insisting that Eve was equal, if not superior, to Adam. Her daughter, Julia Maria Murray, was born in 1791. Essays and Drama In February, 1792, Murray began a series of essays for the Massachusetts Magazine titled The Gleaner (also her pseudonym), which focused on the politics of the new nation of America as well as religious and moral themes, including womens equality.  One of her common early topics was the importance of educating female children—Julia Maria was 6 months old when her mother began her column. Her novel, The Story of Margaretta, was written in a series among The Gleaner essays. It is the tale of a young woman who falls prey to a sinister lover and rejects him, and she is portrayed not as a fallen woman but rather as an intelligent heroine who is capable of forging an independent life for herself. The Murrays moved from Gloucester to Boston in 1793, where together they founded a Universalist congregation. Several of her writings reveal her role in shaping the tenets of Universalism, which was the first American religion to ordain women. Murray wrote drama first in response to a call for original work by American writers (also directed to her husband, John Murray), and though her plays did not find critical acclaim, they did achieve some popular success. Her first play was The Medium: or Virtue Triumphant, and it opened and quickly closed on the Boston stage. It was, however, the first play dramatized there by an American author. In 1798, Murray published a collection of her writings in three volumes as The Gleaner. She thereby became the first American woman to self-publish a book.  The books were sold on subscription, to help support the family.  John Adams and George Washington were among the subscribers.  In 1802 she helped to found a school for girls in Dorchester. Later Life and Death John Murray, whose health had been frail for some time, had a stroke in 1809 that paralyzed him for the rest of his life.  In 1812, her daughter Julia Maria married a wealthy Mississippian named Adam Louis Bingaman, whose family had contributed somewhat to his education while he lived with Judith and John Murray. By 1812, the Murrays were experiencing painful financial issues. Judith Murray edited and published John Murrays letters and sermons that same year, as Letters and Sketches of Sermons. John Murray died in 1815, and in 1816, Judith Sargent Murray published his autobiography, Records of the Life of the Rev. John Murray. In her last years, Judith Sargent Murray continued her correspondence with her family and friends; her daughter and husband supported her financially in her later life, and she moved to their home in Natchez, Mississippi in 1816. Judith Sargent Murray died on July 6, 1820, in Natchez at the age of 69. Legacy Judith Sargent Murray was largely forgotten as a writer until late in the 20th century. Alice Rossi resurrected On the Equality of the Sexes for a collection called The Feminist Papers  in 1974, bringing it to wider attention. In 1984, Unitarian Universalist minister, Gordon Gibson, found Judith Sargent Murrays letter books in Natchez, Mississippi—books into which she kept copies of her letters. (They are now in the Mississippi Archives.) She is the only woman from that period of time for whom we have such letter books, and these copies have allowed scholars to discover much about not only Judith Sargent Murrays life and ideas, but also about daily life in the time of the American Revolution and early Republic. In 1996, Bonnie Hurd Smith founded the Judith Sargent Murray Society to promote Judiths life and work. Smith provided useful suggestions for details in this profile, which also drew on other resources about Judith Sargent Murray. Sources Field, Vena Bernadette. Constantia: A Study of the Life and Works of Judith Sargent Murray, 1751-1920. Orono: University of Maine Studies, 2012.Harris, Sharon M., ed. Selected Writings of Judith Sargent Murray. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.Murray, Judith Sargent [as Constancia]. The Gleaner: A Miscellaneous Production, Volumes 1–3. Boston: J. Thomas and E.T. Andrews, 1798.Rossi, Alice S., ed. The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1973.Smith, Bonnie Hurd. Judith Sargent Murray and the Emergence of an American Womens Literary Traditions. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale Researcher Guide, 2018.Kritzer, Amelia Howe. â€Å"Playing with Republican Motherhood: Self-Representation in Plays by Susanna Haswell Rowson and Judith Sargent Murray.† Early American Literature 31.2, 1996. 150–166.  Ã‚  Skemp, Sheila L. First Lady of Letters: Judith Sargent Murray and the Struggle for Female Independence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.