#1scientific study on the pet’s diet
Thescientific method is useful in finding out things it is organizedand known to achieve good results. There are six sections associatedwith the scientific method. It includes the aim of the research, theresearch, hypothesis, experiment, the analysis and finally theconclusion. The puppies` health is reliable for the food they feed,sugars and colorants prevail in much commercial food for puppies.People consider vegetarian diets more helpful to the state of puppy’shealth than traditional food In America.
Theviability of vegetarian diets over the diet containing meat forpuppies is the problem to be analyzed by this scientific method. Theobservation made shows that puppies that usually feed on meat dietsall through without vegetarian diets are prone to many health hazardsas opposed to the puppies that feed on vegetarian diets. Theexperiment will involve two puppies that had already weaned. Thepuppy of the toy group feeds on vegetarian diets while itscounterpart in the working group feed entirely on meat diets.
Therecorded data after the observation of the two puppies indicates thatthe puppy feeds entirely on meat have numerous health problems asopposed to the other puppy that feed on vegetarian diets. The workinggroup’s puppy has been reported to have a number of health problemsfrom time to time. The problems include dental as well as stomachupsets. The problems have led the owner of the puppy to be spendingmuch money on its medication. On the other hand, the toy group’spuppy has been having good health.
Thehypothesis indicates that a vegetarian diet for puppies is betterthan meat diet. Meat diet could be the possible reason of putting aworking group’s puppy in unhealthy condition. The meat diets couldbe having bacteria that affect the puppy’s dental as well asstomach. Similarly, the teeth of the puppy could be also weak tohandle meat all through thus the puppy’s dental problems. Thedigestion system of the puppy could also be not strong enough tocounteract with meat irritations. On the other hand, a vegetariandiet is friendly in all means to the toy group’s health.
Experimentand its results
Theexperiments have indicated that there is great concern about thebacteria contamination that puppies are exposed to when they feed onmeat ingredients. They are known to causing diseases to the puppies.On the case that the meat is cooked or processed, it poses lesserrisks to the infections than the raw meat. Experiments furtherindicated that the consistent consumption of raw meat by the workinggroup’s puppy has posed a risk to the teeth of puppy. There arecases of internal puncture of the teeth. The experiments also showedthat dogs have high levels of hydrochloric acid that helps them totolerate the bacterial infections.
However,puppies’ digestion system may fail to tolerate to all theinfections and thus lead to irritations. Some puppies possesscomplications in their immune that make them fail to toleratebacteria. The experiments also indicated that a raw meat does notcontain calcium. A calcium deficiency in the diet leads todegeneration of bones of the puppies. Raw meat that is not fresh mayalso contain parasites that may be responsible for causingirritations to puppies. On the other hand, the vegetarian diets havethe potential of reducing much of allergies in puppies. It is alsofriendly to both the dental and digestive systems of a puppy. It isbecause the vegetarian diets do not have much bacteria and it iseasily digestible.
Inconclusion, since puppy’s dental and digestive systems are underconsistent growth, increased bacterial infections might be too muchto tolerate. It is, therefore, recommendable to feed puppies onvegetarian diets more than diets with meat. The toy group’s puppyhad good health due to the friendliness present in the vegetariandiets as opposed to numerous possible irritations in meat diets. Thebacteria in meat are the causes of the problems that were present inthe working group’s puppy. The vegetarian diets are hence betterthan the meat diets for puppies.
#2Euthanasia law in Belgium
Theparliament of Belgium legalized the issue of euthanasia in May of2002. Many young people die of cancer and other terminal sicknessesfrom their homes. In all the cases, physical suffering was present.Euthanasia law was also extended to Children any form of terminalillnesses. However, there are conditions imposed to the children thatinclude the understanding of the meaning of euthanasia. The parentshave to approve the euthanasia request of his or her child. The caseliable for euthanasia is only terminal illness without any availabletreatment for the pain they are experiencing. A psychologist mustapprove the decision of the by verifying the request is genuine.Euthanasia is the act of ending life to someone with the aim ofrelieving the suffering they are experiencing.
Thereare various reasons as to why euthanasia should have support. Amongthe reasons is that there are more advantages that are associatedwith the case than the disadvantages. The patient can benefit in manyways. It saves the patient from the pain as well as heartache. Terminal illnesses without medications put much grief and heartacheto the victims. They end up hating themselves and regretting of theirexistence. Sufferings happen to be their day to day experience. Thehopelessness overwhelms them, hence increasing their suffering.Because there is no hope of recovering, euthanasia, therefore, playsa vital role in cutting short their suffering and hence creating anadvantage.
Itis also advantageous because it enables a person to diewith dignity without the pain associated with the sickness and on thepresence of the family members. Patients should not be allowed tospend their lives in misery and suffering. On the case that thepatient has tried any possible way to cure his or her disease and hasfailed then euthanasia can be a better solution to the problem. Onsome cases, there is no cure to the disease one is suffering and theresult is death. One can opt to end his or her life by the assistanceof the doctors. With the help from doctors people are able to livelonger but one cannot keep the quality of life they had. Euthanasiahelps people to have a variety of choices and hence it should havesupport. Other people should not make decisions on the life of aperson. On the case that the patient is willing to end his or herlife, then they should be able to make their personal decision.However, it should only be in the case of the terminally ill peopleto avoid its manipulation by healthy individuals.
Thereare prevailing reasons as to why euthanasia should face rejection inthe legislation. First there are many other choices that the patientcan take despite euthanasia. Irrespective of the fact that a personbelieves that he or she will die soon they should live for thelongest time they can. Finances are the major drawbacks in the caseof terminal illness people should not be ashamed to ask forassistance from relatives and other people instead of ending theirlives. People who are sick tend to have poor reasoning and should notbe allowed to just end their lives. The society and euthanasia shouldassist them should be illegal.
Doctorsare also subjected to the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors are not allowedto harm a person the issue of euthanasia in all ways is doing harmto the person. Killing a person is harming the person. The issue ofreligion is also another aspect, God has set the life for everyindividual and it is not worth terminating it against the desire ofGod. Suicide is also wrong in accordance to the norms of thesociety. The family to the person who has opted euthanasia may nothave clear answers to the reasons as to why the patient opted to endhis or her life.
Thevoting towards legalization of euthanasia should not have support. Itis because it can create an environment where people end their livesany time they feel like, they also see it as a normal aspect. In manycases people feel that they cannot go on with life and they can optto terminate it, however, that might not be the end of the life theywere supposed to live.
#3the embryonic stem cell research
Thereis a much hope that is offered by the embryonic stem cell research toeliminate the human suffering and pain due to diseases and injuries.HESCs have the ability to differentiate to all kinds of cells in thebody. They are also capable of renewing themselves. The objective ofthe study is the identification of the mechanism that regulates thedifferentiation of cells and also turns the HESCs into cell types tobe used to cure illnesses that threaten human life, as well asinjuries. Irrespective of the promises of the research it has metstrong opposition because it involves the destruction of the humanembryo.
Themain cause of the controversy is the contradicting views on the valueof the human embryo. Ethical issues also emerge in the case, theessence of destroying the human embryo is among the questions.Researches should have a clear cut on whether they are complicit onthe issue of destroying embryos and the distinct of creating theembryos for research or reproductive ends.
Thebenefits associated with the research provide the basis that favorsthe research. When observed from the consequentiality perspective thehealth benefits derived from the research outnumber the loss of theembryos by the person who wish to protect the embryos. However,there are arguments that the research kills innocent children intrying to promote the social utility.
TheIVF debates are under the influence of various deep prejudices andethical value systems. The medical practitioners, decision makers,courts, scientists, as well as the public, are going through newquandaries that incorporate controversies among the held values. Thedefinition of initiation of life in an ethic manner is the mainquestion that arises from Human embryonic stem cell practice. Thereare debates about the ever-increasing accessibility of In vitroFertilization methods. However, the issue of what happens to theextra embryos goes unmentioned.
TheIn Vitro Fertilization technique has also faced unhealthy ethicalinfluence since it is believed to have turned children intocommodities. It is because the creation power solely lies to God andhence it should take place in accordance to God’s natural preferredmode. It is unethical to alter or interfere with natural processesthat were predestined by God. The aspect, therefore, excludes thechildren born through IVF in the human category rather classifiesthem with goods. It is clear that people have all the rights tomodify their personal entities so that the natural actionsperformance is in an apt manner. However, people do not have anyright to change personal entity to eliminate the natural actions. Theartificial means fall in the cluster of alteration of the personalentity thereby eliminating the natural actions.
Researchindicates that only four attempts out one hundred and fifty attemptsof implanting human embryos were successful. Either willingly orknowingly, it is very unethical to waste human beings. Pregnancy is athing of lottery for every couple. It, therefore, creates a greatinfluential ethical approach to this issue. The comparison madebetween individuals who require IVF to those who spontaneouslyconceive indicates that the lottery lies heavily on the basis ofsuccessful results at each stage but not just conception. The aspecthence outdoes the IVF techniques since their success is always inquestion. The technique is, therefore, viewed as a step away from theGod’s law.
Thehuman life is simply in line with God’s law for it to be ethical.When this technique becomes viewed under this perspective, the aspectoffers great ethical influence on how the technique is unethical. Anumber of consequences are evident as a result of carrying out theIVF activity. Congenital and chromosomal defects are some of theconsequences of the activity. In the entire history of the assistedreproduction concerns on the safety of this procedure have beenevident. The research has indicated that the infants conceived viathe in vitro fertilization technique most likely have preterm birth.They are born having low weight as well as having high or twin ordermultiple as opposed to the infants conceived spontaneously. Theevidence in relation to the birth defects risks is not clear.