Best answer:

Answer by silverearth1
Cambodia and Arican children need help !

Give your answer to this question below!

A) The secret bombings of Cambodia
B) The Gulf of Tonkin Resolutions
C) The Kent State shootings
D) The Tet offensive

PLEASE HELP!!! THANKS

Best answer:

Answer by Distant Traveler
B. All the rest occurred after the war was under way.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

——————————————————————————–

A North Vietnam
B South Vietnam
C Cambodia
D China

Best answer:

Answer by tuffy
B

What do you think? Answer below!

Anyone have experiences in these countries? Good/bad? I am looking for the best experience and most fun trip between those options. I am 28 years old, male & American.

Best answer:

Answer by Lisa Maughm
I think you should opt for the second tour. It seems to cover more destinations and is a culturally different from western side. This would give you good chance to try out its culture / cuisine/ dances and various other factors. You can try out a good travel site HelloTravel for planning your trip to these destinations and probably you would get great deals and packages.

What do you think? Answer below!

Was thinking of going to Udon Thani or Chiang Mai in Thailand or Vientiane in Laos or Phnom Penh (possibly Siem Reap too) in Cambodia? Any ideas?

The biggest determining factor is of course money, the costs in each of these places!

Best answer:

Answer by پنجابی جٹ
Laos & Cambodia can be combined for a 3 week holiday,and certainly worth it,Thailand has become a bit expensive.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Best answer:

Answer by Undefined Persona
Out of the three (and this may seem rude or judgmental), I’d say South Africa, since it is the most civilized country out of the three, in most places.

What do you think? Answer below!

http://www.canada.com/news/RCMP+investigates+report+sled+dogs+killed+following+tourism+lull/4197883/story.html

Where approximately 100 sled dogs were ‘euthanized’ by a lay person (using a gun and exsanguination). Some of the dogs apparently didn’t die humanely. (Multiple shots, panic over their pack members being shot).

In the story, it states that a vet was contacted and refused to participate in the matter.

What do you think would be the right thing for the vet to do?

Encourage surrender of the dogs? (apparently the guy who did it tried to adopt out the dogs with limited success — remember these aren’t the most well socialized dogs)
Perform the euthanasia of the animals under more controlled circumstances? (I don’t know about you, but I would have a hard time euthanizing 100 dogs at one time).
Offer training to the person doing the job in appropriate euthanasia (and risk condoning the act — knowing that he would be unable to provide the person with the appropriate drugs or training that would be used in a vet’s office)?
Deny flat out (which seems to be what was done and probably resulted in a worse end for the animals)?
Something else?

As a future vet, I don’t know what I would have done in this situation, and what would have led to the best outcome for the animals in question.
The animals were healthy.
This was a sled dog operation. The speculation (which hasn’t been confirmed) is that they were trying to expand their business for the Vancouver Olympics. After the Olympics, the demand wasn’t there, and they had 100 dogs too many. So — they elected to euthanize.
@More Bored Collie — The article says they tried to rehome (how hard they tried, I don’t know…), but I can imagine it might be difficult to find a homes for 100 relatively poorly socialized dogs (certainly not used to living in houses), heck its hard enough to find homes for 100 ‘normal’ dogs.
@Hollie — Obviously they have the right to refuse, the question is should they? This is actually a fairly common question during vet school admission interviews. “How do you feel about convenience euthanasia”. The stock answer is always — “Encourage to surrender, if they won’t, turn the client away”. In an ideal world, obviously every one of those dogs would have a home, but we don’t live in an ideal world. When you don’t have to actually make the decision, and deal with the consequences, its easy, but the fact is any time you turn away a euthanasia there is the possibility that they will take matters in to their own hands — so where does that leave you? You *know* you can do it more humanely than they can. You have the training, and expertise (and equipment) to do the job properly.

Best answer:

Answer by ladystang
why did they want them put down?
if healthy i couldn’t do it.

What do you think? Answer below!

In the United States there were 31,655 suicides in 2002, which accounts for 11 suicides per
100,000 individuals, with the vast proportion of these (4,354) being males in the 25–44 yrs.
age cohort. The World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that rates have increased by 60
per cent worldwide and that suicide is now among the three leading causes of death within the
15–44 age cohort for both sexes. Just as Emile Durkheim discovered when completing his
study Suicide, such is the sensitivity surrounding the issue, particularly in countries where suicide
is completely proscribed, that the WHO report that statistics on suicide may, in fact, be
inaccurate.
In most societies throughout the world suicide is illegal. A quick web search will reveal many
websites devoted to the prevention of suicide. Suicide is a deeply emotive subject, yet does the
individual have the right to dispose of his or her body as he or she sees fit? The case for euthanasia is both provocative and topical and highlights conflicting arguments surrounding the issue of suicide. In the case of euthanasia, the issues are further complicated by the fact that many
terminally ill individuals need help in committing suicide. This leaves those who aid in the
voluntary suicide of another human being in a difficult legal situation. Should terminally ill
individuals be allowed to choose suicide and should their loved ones be legally permitted to
help them achieve their aim?
The Swiss-based charity Dignitas was founded in 1998 to aid sufferers of terminal illness to
commit suicide. Their slogan is ‘Live with dignity, die with dignity’. By December 2004 Dignitas had aided 146 individuals to ‘die with dignity’. More than two-thirds of these individuals were not Swiss nationals. Aiding the suicide of another human being is illegal in Switzerland, however, the ambiguous wording of the law, which states that anyone providing assistance or who ‘lures’ another individual to commit suicide ‘out of a self-interested motivation’, has provided something of a legal loophole for specialist volunteers of Dignitas. Volunteers do not administer the drug which ends the individual’s life. This is left to the individual concerned.
The organisation has provoked considerable unease amongst Swiss politicians, many of whom
argue that they are apprehensive regarding the motivations of any individuals who wish to aid
in the death of another human being, even if that death is a welcome one for the individual concerned.
Another reason for concern is that the Swiss authorities ‘do not want Switzerland to be
a destination for tourism for suicide’.
In November 2000 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia.
Euthanasia had been tolerated by the Dutch authorities for decades but the change in statute
provoked considerable international unease. Despite strict medical and legal guidelines surrounding euthanasia, opponents argue that its legal sanction is open to abuse, not least because
a patient with a terminal illness may be particularly vulnerable and thus unable to be objective.
In addition, opponents argue that such is the high level of palliative care now on offer to terminally ill patients that no human being need suffer intolerable pain during a terminal illness (and oft-cited reason for the option for euthanasia).
Supporters of euthanasia argue that there is an apparent paradox with regard to euthanasia, in
that passive (voluntary) euthanasia, where medical treatment which aims to prolong life is
withheld, thus allowing the patient to die, is generally regarded as morally acceptable. In contrast
to this, active (voluntary) euthanasia, where the patient actively chooses to end his or her
life, is generally regarded as morally unacceptable. In April 2002, the question of the moral
acceptability of active (voluntary) euthanasia, as opposed to passive (voluntary) euthanasia,
was tested in the UK courts in the case of Diane Pretty. The European Court of Human Rights
ruled that Mrs Pretty, who was suffering from motor neurone disease, did not have the right to
choose when to end her life. Yet, in the week before the Pretty case, the same Court gave ‘Miss
B’ the right to request removal of the ventilator which was prolonging her life to be removed.
Mrs Pretty’s husband had requested legal sanction to aid his wife to commit active (voluntary)
euthanasia, a request which was denied by the Court.
Euthanasia is a topic which has provoked global interest, with religious groups in particular
voicing their fervent disapproval. Groups such as Liberty and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society
in the UK and the Euthanasia Society in the US, as well as other groups in New Zealand
and Western Australia are calling upon their respective governments for a change in the law. In
essence, suicide as an issue is one which provokes often polarised discussions and debate and,
as Durkheim discovered, it is an issue which is often shrouded in concealment.

Sources
www.samaritans.org.uk
The United States National Center for Health Statistics
BBC News, 20 January 2003

Discussion questions
1. Should terminally ill patients be given the legal right to end their lives by active (voluntary)
euthanasia?
2. How can suicide statistics help us to understand the structure and social problems of different
societies?
3. In what ways might euthanasia be open to abuse?

Best answer:

Answer by J.
Long questiong…. homework?

But suicide (as it is usually used) and euthanasia are slightly different; you shouldn’t help an non-terminally ill person committ suicide as they can recover. And suicide-risk people are usually watched. However, they are not punished for attempting suicide, so I guess they have the right but we try to prevent them exercising it? Euthanasia is a slightly different situation, though.

Give your answer to this question below!

Backers of AB 1634 are either unaware or simply ignore the fact that across the nation, similar forced sterilization law have been a complete failure and subsequently repealed following a sharp increases in shelter intake,euthanasia rates,animal control expenses znd noncompliances with pet licensing.

NO MORE MUTT BY LAW
Only registered pure-breed dogs and cats would be permitted to breed ,but only as long as selected owners can qualifies for an exemption permit,pay a hefty annual fee,and meet certain criteria that is arbitrarily and illogical.There is no permit for mix breeds.if AB 1634 works as intended ,all mutts in califorina will be eliminated.

WHAT THEY DON’T MENTION
Euthanasia rates for dogs in California have been falling steadily for decades -down 86% from the mid 1970s because local agencies fund what works:education,leash laws,so on

TAKE A GIANT STEP -BACKWARDS
AB 1634 will set us back decades by taking scares funds from proven effective programs to pay for the laws administration ,permit processing,and costly enforcement.Many jurisdictions have already repealed such a law after experiencing
a dramatic increase in shelter intakes and euthanasia rates.

A ONE BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED MANDATE
increase intakes and euthanasia rates at animal shelter, additional law enfocement
services,and a loss of pet license revenues will end up costing taxpayers $ 1 billion
if AB 1634 becomes a law. Losses to California’s overall economy could top $ 5billion
from lost sales tax for pet products,a loss of tourism revenue from dog and cat shows, and a devastated cattle and agriculture industry.

PROVEN TO BE COMPLETELY UNSUCCESSFUL

SAN MATEO COUNTY CA:Dog euthanasia rated more than doubled, cats increased 86% dog licensing fell 35%

Montgomery County ,MD: Repealed its spay/neuter law after euthanasia rates declined slower than before the law was enacted and licensing fell by more than half

LOS ANGELES CA:Animal control expenses rose 26% from $ 6.7 million to $ 18 million
licensing fell

Best answer:

Answer by animal lover13
i really dont think its right
i think that they should try to get MOST dogs and cats spayed and neutered but ALL…..
this means if people want a new pet that it will be harder to find.
and i know you can get dogs from breeders but pure breeds end up having many health problems in the future

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Best answer:

Answer by ankit 4
awareness of cancer ( which is surely a deadly disease. Do you know, 1 in every 4 people in US die of cancer.)

i gave an oral presentation on this, last to last week.

i have some written data for that, if you want you can mail me :-
ninja2hot@yahoo.co.in

What do you think? Answer below!