Disagree that government vouchers should be given to pay for private religious schools?  The first amendment of the Constitution says that the U.S. government can not establish a religion of the state or prohibit the peoples free exercise of a religion.  This can be interpreted, regarding the educational system, to mean that  the government is forbidden to introduce or subsidize religious teachings in schools.  There are a multitude of reasons that government vouchers should not subsidize religious institutes.

The majority of the schools in the government school voucher program are religious; government funding of such institutes violates the 1st Amendment separation of church and state.  For example, 95% of school vouchers go to religious schools, and this directly contradicts the 1st Amendment.  If government funding of these schools is allowed through vouchers, then this sets a precedence that could extend to government funding of other religious institutions.  Additionally, private schools are not subjected to as much oversight as public school.  The government has less power to control private schools, so the quality of education may not match that of the public schools.  Also, private schools can discriminate through test scores, religion, and even disabilities when deciding who to accept; for this reason, government funding should support exclusively public schools as they must accommodate all types of individuals.  This 1st Amendment and the lack of government control over private schools are some of the reasons that school vouchers should not be allowed to fund religious schools.

Government vouchers also take funds away from public schools.  Many public schools are failing because they are unable to pay for the necessary tools of education, such as books, teachers, computers, etc.  If the funds from government vouchers were instead used to fix underfunded schools, then the U.S. educational system could be greatly improved.  Government funding should not be used to support private religious school as this disregards the 1st Amendment, instead this money should be utilized to improve the public schools of our society.

Government vouchers should not be used to fund private religious schools.  Government funding of these religious institutes clearly violates the 1st Amendment separation of church and state; these funds from school vouchers would be must better spent by improving the public schools of our society.  Furthermore, private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools, and they may discriminate regarding which student they accept into their programs.  This could result in a poorer education for students that attend private religious schools.  For these reasons, government vouchers should under no circumstances fund private schools.

Agree with physician assisted suicide? There are an array of reasons that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. People should have the right to choose whether and when they want to die. A patient should not be forced to continue living, when there is no hope for recovery and they are experiencing intense pain. This in turn would reduce pain of the patient and their family. Other lives would be saved and health care costs would be reduced if it was legalized. These and many other reasons support the idea that physician assisted suicide would be beneficial to our society as a whole.

Allowing physician assisted suicide would lessen the pain and enable some terminally ill patients fairer treatment. Horrible pain and suffering that some patients must endure prior to death could be done away with. Instead of a dragged out death that puts burdens on family members, families could say their goodbyes at a specified time. The right to die is a fundamental right that all people should have. Additionally, justice says that we should “treat like cases alike”. Some patients can refuse treatments which will hasten death; however, for some patients treatment refusal will not speed up death, so suicide is the only option. Also, the assistance of a physician with suicide would mean that there would be less messy and traumatizing suicides. Many people that are facing an agonizing death choose to commit suicide. Some do this through shooting themselves in the head or jumping off a building, and this can have significant negative impacts on those that the patient left behind. If physicians were enabled to participate in assisted suicides, then these traumatic suicides could be avoided. Physician assisted suicide is a beneficial option for terminally ill patients to have because it lets them reduce pain and maintain their dignity during death.

Furthermore, if physician assisted suicide were allowed other lives would be saved and health care costs would be lowered. If a patient chooses assisted suicide instead of a prolonged death, then medical staff would have more time to treat other patients. Understaffed hospitals have an increased rate of making mistakes and provide a lesser quality of care for patients. Additionally, millions of dollars are spent each year to keep patients alive who are terminally ill, who would prefer to be dead. This money could be better spent on patients who can be saved. Also, vital organs could be used to save the lives of other patients. It isn’t fair to the patients or the health care system to drag out a dying patients life when they would rather die. By legalizing physician assisted suicide, hospitals would be more efficient, costs would be lowered, and other patients would be saved.

Physician assisted suicide is beneficial to all of the parties involved. Patients can stop an agonizing death and die when they want to. Families are not forced under the burdens of a dying relative for months or years. The lives of other patients would be saved; medical costs and errors would be reduced. Physician assisted suicide is something that upon closer examination has many advantages.