2500 words REFLECTIVE JOURNAL- NOT A SUMMARY OR ESSAY, THIS IS A REFLECTIVE JOURNAL

/in /by
 
NO PLAGIARISM
COURSE: REL 331: Religion and Personal Experience
 
The journal is not a summary of the reading. It is not your “opinion” since opinions do not require support. Instead, it is a thoughtful response which shows that you’ve read the material thoroughly and reflected on it carefully and can give good reasons to support your beliefs and what you are saying. It is not a discussion of what went on in class. It should show your own “voice,” i.e., it should show that you are doing the thinking and not someone else. On the other hand, you may acknowledge the contributions of others (“Jane pointed out to me that ….”). CHECK OUT THE ATTACHED DOCs FOR MORE INFO ABOUT HOW TO START AND DO THIS ASSIGNMENT.

 

1- we watch a movie call “Of Gods and Men” for three classes.

 

2- Ram Dass, Still Here. 

 

3-    About the Moyers’ video …

 

 

  It shows you two ordinary people who want to control their dying as a part of their living, and they want physician-assisted suicide. They both love life and are clear-headed, that is, they aren’t deranged life-haters and they are competent to make the decision. They don’t need or want other people to do their thinking for them.

 

            Physician-assisted suicide is illegal in LA, legal in OR.

 

            The man with ALS is concerned that he will have to take his life before he wants to since if he waits too long he won’t able to do it.

 

            The male (Catholic) oncologist in OR says he would be willing to give sedatives to east pain even if he knew this would lead to the patient’s death (this is acceptable in traditional Catholic teaching) but not give a drug that would kill the patient (traditional Catholic teaching calls this “euthanasia”). The female oncologist thinks in this sort of case there is not much moral difference: she’s willing to provide the deadly barbiturate mixture that will end the patient’s life.

 

            The moral question is: are these practices morally acceptable?

 

            The political/legal question is: should the government acknowledge the citizens’ right to make their own decisions here?