Quality of Life

I made a short survey for euthanasia, and one of the questions were: How would you describe a quality life?

Here are some of the responses I received:

"A quality life is where an individual has some semblance of enjoyment, plesure in daily living. Where an individual has no hope of a better life, a child who will endure years of suffering simply to survive has no quality of life."

"able to physically and mentally do everything for yourself"

Any living being capable of achieving happiness."

"being surrounded by your family not matter how bad life is keep a better belief and always stick to god."

So if a life was crippling, painful, and unbearable, should it be forced to be continued with palliative care? 

I don't think anyone should be forced. I think euthanasia should be available for everyone suffering from an incurable disease/illness that restricts them from experiencing a quality life. 

One point to make is that end-of-life treatment for people who are terminally ill is extremely expensive. According to this article, the end-of-life care for a single individual at the end of their life costs an estimated $39000. That price doesn't ensure a quality life. That price gives the terminal patient a set amount of days to simply survive. 

The definition of a quality life is different for everyone. But if I was in constant pain, had to make several hospital trips, and knew I was going to die soon, I would prefer to have the option of euthanasia because that doesn't sound like a quality life to me.

-Alexis

Guns Kill People

...So why is there one sitting behind my bedroom door?

Well, I most definitely don't plan on killing anyone. 

I own a shotgun for recreational purposes (only targets- never animals), and to protect myself if I ever need it. I don't expect anything bad to happen, but who ever does? I will agree that we should rely on our police force as well as the military to defend us; however, sometimes that's just not enough. People who are in danger have to call 911, wait for police to show up, and then they can be helped. Until then, what are they supposed to do, wait? In certain situations, there is no such thing as waiting.

I completely understand the opposition to my argument. People simply wish there were less deaths. People want safety. I understand that, and I wish there were less deaths as well. But stripping people of their right to bear arms is not going to ensure safety. 

If it were illegal to own guns, clearly I would get rid of mine because I'm an American citizen who obeys the laws. However, are the criminals who own guns going to do the same? I highly doubt it. Some people don't live by the laws. If that happened, all of the innocent people would be unarmed and all of the criminals would be. 

Some may argue that countries who don't allow guns/have strict gun laws demonstrates lower crime rates, but that is not true. Statistics show, for example, that the rate of crime in the UK has actually risen since the banning of firearms.  

Evidently in the graph, the number of licensed firearm crime decreased dramatically after the gun ban, but the number of firearm and violent crime dramatically increased. If firearms were to be banned in the US, I predict that a similar outcome would take effect. 

Overall, the second amendment was made for a reason, and that is to provide the availability of firearms to citizens of the U.S. for our safety. 

What are your opinions?

Talk to you soon,

Alexis

McDonald's Whole Potato Ad

I don't know about you, but when I think of McDonald's, I think of unreal food, pink slime in their burgers, and french fries that don't spoil after a month of sitting in your car (it was an accident, okay?).

I used to see rumors all the time about McDonald's, followed by videos of their meat products being made with some sort of pink slime, and videos of people comparing the decomposition of McDonald's food versus other food.

So, when I saw this ad by McDonald's, my first thoughts were: Is it true? Are they finally trying to improve the quality of their products, or are they just trying to make people think they are?

Despite McDonald's bad rep, I believe this ad is pretty effective. Lately they've been putting an effort into advertising "real food from good suppliers", and I think it has been beneficial for them.

This ad is simple, but I think McDonald's is trying to gain a larger audience of people, like me, who think that their food is questionably "food". Their goal here is to inform us that their food isn't as bad as the media portrays. This image of a single potato carved into french fries symbolizes that McDonald's "unreal french fries" or actually made from fresh, "healthy" potatoes.

The only text that follows up with this image is "Real Good" on the bottom right, which contributes to the whole purpose of the ad: to show the audience that they have quality food.

Even though this ad didn't make me want to go eat McDonald's (it's been years), it did make me favor the company a little more than I originally had. That isn't much, but this ad was effective at portraying it's purpose. Bravo, McDonald's.

So what do you guys think? Real food, or fake?
Talk to you soon,
Alexis