The UK's new aircraft carrier.

What I read 

According to "HMS Queen Elizabeth: Carrier arrives in Portsmouth" (2017), the writer reports about HMS Queen Elizabeth, the United Kingdom's 3.1 billion pounds new aircraft carrier arrives at Portsmouth naval base in England, which is still under construction and will join the Royal Navy's fleet in 2023. This aircraft carrier is contained the latest technology and the greatest equipment of the UK, with the weight 65,000 tons and the flight deck long 280 meters that capable of carrying 40 F-35B Lightning fighter jets, which makes it becomes the Royal Navy's biggest ever warship. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May claims that "This ship is the symbol of the United Kingdom as a great global maritime nation".

_______________________________________ 

My response 
Nowadays, even the world world was ended for decades, ruthlessness of the war still made people scared. Many countries still try to improve their military power because they are aware of what will happen, if they have to face with their old enimies again in the future. For example, the USA still spends most of their money for developing their military facilities, such as fighting jets and warships. These things make the USA has the world strongest military power in their hands. However, now the world situation is getting worse. We can see many news about the countries problems, such as the USA's alliances and the Noth Korea, and also, the problems of terrorist in Europe and Arab. These problems might lead the world to get in to the war period again.

Since the end of the world war two, The Royal Navy does not develop many facilities like power full countries, such as the USA, Russia and China. HMS Queen Elizabeth is the biggest development of the UK for decades. This move is quite a big move for this country. It is an evident to show that the UK also realizes that they have to prepare for the worst situation that might affect their country too. Moreover, this warship of the UK can be compared with USS Gerald R. Ford, the world greatest aircraft carrier own by the US Navy. This development shows that the UK is able to develop the efficiency of their military facilities to be the same quality as the world greatest military too. It might be the signal that the UK might come back to be one of the greatest countries of the world again.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
Do you think, is it important for the country to develop their military facilities?

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• HMS Queen Elizabeth: Carrier arrives in Portsmouth. (2017, August 08). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-40936071

A Universe without Purpose

What I read 

The author’s grandparents with their new ’72 Ford Thunderbird.

In “The Universe Doesn’t Care About Your ‘Purpose’” (2017), Joseph P. Carter explains the importance and the beginning of purpose which is a universal human need. According to Aristotle, he believe that the universe is saturated with purpose, Every thing has an intrinsic drive, it all has an essential directive. Cars, for instance, is to function successfully as a form of transportation. However, In a human being, a purpose is happiness, flourishing, sound mind and a virtuous disposition are some of the steps that can get us there. However, the author quite disagrees with this because he thinks that there’s nothing intrinsic about the goals and purpose we seek out to achieve. It can be seen that universe operate well without purpose. 

_______________________________________ 

My response 

I came across this article from The New York Times Magazine website. At first glance, I was quite interested in the word 'purpose' which is also reminded me of others words such as 'goals' the question that comes up to my mind was 'what people would look like if there is no purpose?'. I am kind of the person who has purposes in every period of my life. My goals always change as many do. Having skimmed the article, it also reminds me of one of my long-unanswered questions- where does the purpose come from?

P. Carter gives an example of why universal operates well without purpose. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy which refers to the idea of everything in the universe moves from order to disorder, and entropy is the measurement of that change. The physical disorder is all about equilibrium, everything resting randomly and uniformly. Human is a very complicated collection of many particles, they are more becoming more disorderly with time, this is just saying that entropy increase. Every difference between the past and the future will be ultimately be traced to the face that the entropy was low in the past and is growing. The universe was orderly, and it is becoming more disorderly.

The surprising thing is that the universe was ever low entropy at the beginning. The universe began in a highly ordered state. So modern cosmologists are trying to understand why the early universe was in such precise state? why was it so low entropy? P. Carter points that there is no purpose in this process because "Entropy is antagonistic to intrinsic" which is a disorder. He also refers to Sean Carroll, a prominent cosmologist, he says "meaning and purpose aren't built into the architecture of the universe". It springs from our longing for the permanence in an ever-changing universe; It is a reaction to the universe's indifference to us. I think that our stories serve as directives for the ways we want the world to exist.

"Purpose indexes the world's impermanence, namely our own" The article also shows a vivid example that makes me more understand the idea of it. He gives an example of his grandfather's car which will function well as transportation, but that goal only makes sense as an enduring reminder of the stories and memories of his grandfather.  One day we will die, his car will decay along with everything in the universe as many things we 're made of return to the inert state in which everything began. Entropy demands this kind of process

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
Do you agree with this statement 'the universe operate well without purpose'? Why? and Why not?

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• P. Carter, J. (2017, July 31). The Universe Doesn’t Care About Your ‘Purpose’. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/the-universe-doesnt-care-about-your-purpose.html 
• [minutephysics]. (2011, November 13). The Arrow of Time feat. Sean Carroll. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTMuivYF30&vl=en

High Blood Pressure

 

What I read
According to "Fat but fit still risk heart disease"(2017), the research says that people who are overweight or obese have high risk of heart disease.The researchers studied health data showed us that normal blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels were no assurance of good heart health among obese people.After traced a period of more than 12 years, 7,637 of  people in the study had developed heart disease.Weight is also the main risk factor;in the study,people who were overweight or obese readings were about 28% more likely to develop heart disease than similar readings and a healthy body weight.

                                          _______________________________________ 

My response 
When I read this article, I was surprised that overweight might have caused high blood pressure. Before I read, I thought it is only happened in a person who is getting older. The effects of an unhealthy lifestyle can build up than your blood pressure could increased. I think this research is close to our life.If other members in our family have high blood pressure, or have had, it might be high risk to get blood pressure.Furthermore, people may be easier to become overweight when the economy continues to grow constantly. Along with the increasing income of people, they have more high consuming power. If they have an ability to purchase more food, they might eat more than they can eat to satisfy their desire of eating. In many countries, heart disease can be a serious problem, because there are too many people have high blood pressure.

As the research says blood high pressure often increases as weight increases. However, being overweight also can cause disrupted breathing while you are sleeping. So the most important way to avoid increasing blood pressure is to lose weight, it is one of the most effective lifestyle changes for controlling high blood pressure. The other way is to eat a healthy diet that is rich in the whole grains, fruits, vegetables. It is really important to take care of our health when we are young. If we have already overweight, it is hard to recover to our regular weight. Although overweight may not be increasing the risk of heart disease directly, we still have to control our weight. It is a way to prevent increased blood pressure and high glucose from happening.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 

What do you think? Is it essential for us to focus on high blood pressure now? 

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• 'Fat but fit' still risk heart disease. (2017, August 15). BBC News. Retrieved from  http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40921856

New-found Archaic Human's Teeth in Sumatra

What I read 

In the article "Early humans may have seen a supervolcano explosion up close"(2017), according to the discover of two ancient teeth in an Indonesian cave on Sumatra island, our specie might have been in this area around 73,000 years ago which is earlier than what the archaeologist thought that Homo sapiens started immigrating from Africa, passing through islands in Indonesia, to Australia around 65,000 years ago. Westaway, a senior lecturer from Macquarie University, say that this does not mean these early humans settles down in this island because they have to deal with a supervolcano -Toba- explosion (71,000 years ago) and thick rainforest which is very hard to survive, moreover , the evidence of taking up residence has not been found yet.

_______________________________________ 

My response 
It is so amazing in the way we discover things from the past, not just ten or twenty years ago, but thousands years ago. I have heard before I read this article that our specie had originally lived in Africa before they spread out all around the world. It makes me feel counter-intuitive  and astonished at the same time that Africa, the land of extreme environment and difficult to live today, used to be the place where early humans had evolved to become the present human we are. It brings up my idea that Africa from 60,000 years ago might not look like the same as today. There might be more trees and animal, and rain more often than present because I have no idea how archaic humans could survive and evolve if they live in the place where food and water are really hard to find. Especially for evolution, if they had not got enough food, they would not have enough energy to develop their brain.


The distance between Africa and Australia is another amazing thing which makes me curious about  how  humans in 60,000 years ago could immigrate across the large Eurasia and open sea to settle in Australia. Of course they might not walk directly to Australia and reach the destination in one generation, but it is still a long way with many obstacles to face, for example, Timor Sea is a big deal for them to sail across without technology.


Archaeology is very interesting in my opinion. I am always excited when the archaeologist discovers some new evidences which can be used to prove or refutes the early theories. Like this case, the discovery of two ancient teeth is a significant evidence for us to rethink about the transitional thought of ancient human immigration.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
Why should people study to find out our origin? Do you think archaeological knowledge is useful? 

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Klein, A. (2017, August 9). Early humans may have seen a supervolcano explosion up close. New Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142952-early-humans-may-have-seen-a-supervolcano-explosion-up-close/

Pilotless plane

What I read 

According to "Would you get on a pilotless plane?" (2017), the next automated mode of transport might be a pilotless airplane after self-driving car and train; however, an autonomous aircraft tends to be less popular particularly in elderly people following UBS’s survey. Flying is named as the safest transportation and UBS claim that applying pilotless will increase the safety because human error is a main cause of accident. Automated control is currently applied to some plane operations, but pilots are still essential to work since automation often breaks down. To take passenger’s reliability, therefore, a high security is required to eliminate psychological fear of “being in the air” without “humans at the front”. UBS also states that air transport business will gain benefit from pilotless flying owing to pilot and insurance cost saving and more income could be generated from cargo and commercial flight.

_______________________________________ 

My response 
When I first read this article title “Would you get on a pilotless plane?”, my answer was definitely not as it sounds risky and frightened. I still insist on my fist answer after I had completed reading the article. I was quite surprised that majority of air accidents are caused by human error because I think that bad visibility, severe weather condition and accidentally mechanical damage are the main cause rather than human error. I do agree that automatic control will develop safety standard of flying due to the fact that technology is stable and perfectly works following instructions. However, human being possesses things that technology is unable to have. They are instinct and problem solving skill which is very significant when facing an emergency situation. How would it be if an automation fail during pilotless plane is flying.

Although the smallest number of accident results from flying, it seems to be dangerous and exciting transport form for several people including myself. This is because we are on the air at the high level of height and we cannot fly if there is any unexpected situation happened. In addition, even though number of air accident is the least, severity level is the most. As a result, transforming hands-on control to computer control is such a big change. It will provide great advantages to airline business in terms of security enhance and cost reduction; nevertheless, as compared to implementation and maintenance cost, will cost decrease? Furthermore, another negative impact is unemployment of pilots and aircrew. These issues should be considered properly.

What I advise is combination between technology and human. It is not necessary to be 100% control by computer or human due to the fact that each of them can work together for a better result. Technology help reduce human error while human monitors and works in some restricted parts of technology.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
"Would you get on a pilotless plane?" Why or why not?  

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Would you get on a pilotless plane. (2017, August 8). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40860911

Secret of tiny wing

What I read 

In "Maths explains how bees can stay airborne with such tiny wings," scientists have found an exact lift-generated pattern of bee's tiny wing after being mysterious. Once, its flying pattern is believed that it is similar to "a commercial plane". Then later they find that it has an abnormal technique called "leading edge vortices(LEVs)" on its wing which generates "tiny tornado-like airflows," But what they find today after considering many models and experiments is that it, LEVs, "don’t directly generate the lift"; "LEVs mean the wing can fly at a much higher angle of attack without stalling," says Nabawy. This technique also enables insects and many flying creatures to stay in the air. Moreover, Bomphrey says that this finding is useful for further development of our flying vehicles.

_______________________________________ 

My response 
Like my last blog, I tried to find any article about science. As you know, I hate reading even though I'm changing, so science, something mysterious, tends to be interesting most for me. This is not my first reading today; first is too short, so I thought it's more challenging to summarize another longer one. Then, I finally stopped at this news because it attracted me why bees can fly with its small wing compared to its body. Also, another reason is that it's related to the plane which I love. This article is similar to another one that's about how mosquitoes fly.

But what I read is something weird and abstruse, but not at all. I used to play flight simulator which gives me some knowledge(but not much because it's just a short period of time), so I know the word "stall" and can imagine that this condition is when the plane pitch its head more than the limit of that plane(each series of plane has different limit pitch, also depends on other factors) then that plane is going to fall down while its head is pointing up. However, even though it seemed to be clear in this article, what I'm confused at first is that it says "LEVs don’t actually give any extra lift at all" but also says "LEVs mean the wing can fly at a much higher angle of attack without stalling" which "higher angle of attack" makes more lift as I know.  Therefore, this problem stuck me for a while when summarizing. So I kind of understand now that "LEVs" lead to "higher angle of attack" and that leads to more lift. Maybe that's why it says "LEVs don’t directly generate the lift"(hopefully readers would think the same as me). I would take this as "My question for readers", if possible. However, it's just my ridiculous; don't take it seriously. 

After I read this and found many unknown phrases such as LEVs and tiny tornado-like airflows, I opened up google and search for "LEVs bees" and many others hoping to see in a video. Unfortunately, I found nothing answer these phrase. Then I thought it might be really new finding.
However, it's my new knowledge and I hope this would help a lot in our aviation technology.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
Have you ever wondered why bees could fly with their "tiny wing"? Do you know any other insect or living thing that has unbelievable behavior, such as this tiny-wing bee? What future technology using this flying pattern knowledge could you think of?

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Revell T. (2017, July 25). Maths explains how bees can stay airborne with such tiny wings. New Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141802-maths-explains-how-bees-can-stay-airborne-with-such-tiny-wings

Has Law persuaded you?

What we read 
We have now finished reading philosopher Steven Law's essay "Carving the Roast Beast" (2003). Has Law persuaded you that his thesis is correct? That is, do you now agree with him that it is morally wrong to eat meat? 

_______________________________________ 

My response 
You already know that I disagree with Law. My reason for choosing this as an extended reading is not because I happen to agree with Law in thinking that we should be vegetarians. What is like is that although he is writing for a general, educated audience, he presents soundly reasoned arguments that follow the careful organization we expect in more formal academic work.

In fact, Law is following the most ancient academic traditions in using a dialogue to present his ideas.When Plato presents his ideas and arguments through Socrates, he uses dialogues starring Socrates and other characters who speak: all of the argument is presented as dialogue. Nor was this tradition limited to philosophy. Galileo sets forth his discoveries in physics and astronomy in the form of dialogues, a tradition continued in some of the best work by such recent philosophers as David Hume (18th century).

But the fact that I disagree with Law is not a good reason for you to disagree. If you think he is right, you should now stop eating meat, which is easy to do in Bangkok, which has an abundance of vegetarian food options.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
What do you think? Is Law right that it is morally wrong to eat meat?  

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas [Kindle Edition] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/

Pigs might be our organ donors !

What I read 
According to the article"GM pigs take step to being organ donors"(2017). The scientist,Dr. Yang,successfully rid 37 pigs from viruses which hide in their DNA because they want to use it to transplant organs.There is still the shortage of organs so that the experiment on pigs is try hard to solve the problem. It is used to be the same way to create "Dolly sheep".If the xenotransplantation which is used to get organs from other species really works, then it has the potential to alleviate long waits for a transplant.There must be lots of people confused why they choose pig? Due to the fact that pig's organs are similar to humans' and they could bred quickly. However,removing the viruses is only half the challenge, even organs donated from other people can cause a strong immune reaction that leads to the transplant being rejected.

_______________________________________ 

My response 
I think it is really a big and andaudacious behavior to do the experiment because most people can't believe that we could use pig's liver,lung,heart,or something else to save our lives.If the challenge being overcome ,it might have some benefits to us,for example, we could immediately transplant the organs and it brings the hope to the patient,second,the surgery fee might  much cheaper because the way we could get pig's organs is easily.Nevertheless,I think drawbacks are even more serious than benefits.The pig's organ might not really fit our body which results in the rejection of the immune system.The most important is the ethical problem,if we can use this technology,I think is immoral to utlize pigs to rescue ourselves since pigs are still a race,we can't overuse them in order to prolong our life.

However,by the means of genetic technology,the pigs become the suitable donors.Indeed, it is a critical progress,and it also promote the status of pigs.After all, combined with some attributes of human ,they will get strengthened.And maybe one day, we could develop an animal which are personalized to satisfy our demanding and even to create a baby for your seriously illness children to offer the organs.It is really changed our definition to human.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
Do you think it is ethical to transplant pig's organs to human's body? If the experiment being succeeded someday, do you support it, why or why not?

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Gallagher, S. (2017). GM pigs take step to being organ donors. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40886600

Ritualistic Cannibalism ?

What I read 

According to "Cannibals engrave bones of the dead" (2017), researcher found a human forearm with a series of zig zag marks engraved in Gough's Cave, Cheddar George, Sumerset UK. It shows signs of ritualistic eating of human fresh by human being. This pattern on a straight line bone are not teeth marks or damaged by cruel killing, but match to the scientist study of the particular cannibal situation  that happened 15,000 years ago in "other Magdalenian European sites", it could be symbolic idea of cannibalism practice but evidence yet to found. Otherwise, in 1903 Palaeo-investigations discovered "Cheddar man" the complete male skeleton also in the cave. Moreover, in 2011 Dr. Bello and coworkers shows three skulls cases that could be function to hold liquid but difference form this forearm consuming action. 
_______________________________________ 

My response 
Which respond to put first? My first thought was about is that about cannibalism? could that be animals attached action? and why do scientist thought that way? Because first look, the pattern looks like animals teeth but if it was consuming action it would not be ordered like this. Then this also reminded me of cannibal and herbivore about morally wrong theory of present day, in this case mean eat human fresh for living could that be except able as a method of arts of living, I could not summon that. But in this interesting case " Cannibalistic practice" I wondered how many bones do they have found or do they found elsewhere because this could be refereeing to something more unexpected. For example, could that forearm bone be a material to train people to change from ones who do not prefer to eat meat to eat meat ( this might be the weakest way of thought) or is this could be some kind of punishment but no evidence to prove any theories of this zig zag pattern.          

But this designed also reminded me of primitive ornament, this could referred to Gods of nature religions. This forearm might be some instrument of the ceremony compare with the braincases theory of Dr.Bello and coworker.  

In my confusion and questioning, yet to summon the purpose of the pattern. So I chose to stop at this point and dig deeper to primitive research, history of cave art, primitive art and ancient cannibalism. I will come back and continue to clarify my attention  

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
What do you think? Should we agree with the scientist that this pattern shows a particular situation of ancient cannibalism or it is just an ancient mistaken?

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Cannibals engraved bones of the dead. (2017, August 10). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40886748

Je t'aime... Me not anymore?

What I read 

In "The erotic songs lost in translation", Cath Pound (2017), says: "many musicians have tried to interpret the French legend Serge Gainsbourg’s songs". It's very complicated to translate popular songs from original language to others. Accordingly to Pound, we know how Jane Birkin, perhaps one of the most interesting women of the 20th century, tries to keep the legacy of her beloved man Serge Gainsbourg and give new life to his songs. Serge was a French composer and singer, he was a very shocking and "brave" hero of his time. He died in 1991. Since then, many musicians have been trying to translate the songs of Gainsbourg into English, but this is not easy, because they lose the "soul of the song". Possibly, only one person can save this - his English ex-wife Jane.

_______________________________________ 

My response 

What do you know about French culture and music? Have you heard any songs of Serge Gainsbourg? I'm absolutely sure that yes. But, maybe you just don't know who is the author of these words and music. I remember one of my favorite movies "Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life" (2010), this is the story of Serdge's life. This is the story about his problems, his victories, his illnesses, attachments and his love. I really believe that this man was a genius. The Jewish boy was born in Ukraine, everyone considered him extremely ugly, and, unfortunately, a non-talented. But anyway, Serge was a self-made person, how is trendy to say now. If you don't believe me, just listen to some of his songs on YouTube. In addition to his talent, he is known for his romances with beautiful women. He had romances with Juliette Greso, Brigitte Bordeaux, Jane Birkin. Unfortunately, Birkin is only famous for the fact that the most expensive model of Hermes bag is named in her honor. Not a lot, isn't it? Gainsbourg and Birkin had a great life: they loved each other, gave birth to children, raised a dog (mini bullterrier), performed many concerts, wrote a lot of songs.

Ginzburg is dead for 26 years, but his songs are with us. He is known primarily as a French singer, and all these years many talented musicians have tried to translate his songs into other languages. Jane Birkin wants to translate them and does it. I have to say that a lot of his songs were very bold and eccentric for the time when they were written. And many songs were dedicated to Jane. She is English. Maybe no one can understand his songs better, and no one can interprete his songs better than her. But I still have a question. Is this really necessary for us? Why? What for? As the example we can see lyrics of the song "Je t'aime... Moi non plus". The song was written for Gainsbourg's girlfriend, Brigitte Bardoux, but her husband didn't allow them to perform this duet. The song was presented to the public only after many years , Serge performed it with his wife Jane Birkin. It made them famous: this song is very bold and erotic. After, the song has been covered hundreds of times: Donna Summer was singing "Love to love you Baby", Pet Shop Boys were singing "I love you – me not anymore", Madonna - "I love you...me either". If you understand a bit of French, you understand that no translation is equal to the original.

French music is beautiful and gorgeous! Songs in the French language are incredible. Exactly the language gives them a special chic. Maybe I think subjectively because I'm in love with French. My opinion is that we should keep the legacy of the author. This man is a legend, and he left to us enough to remember him.

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 

Do you now any examples of successful translation of famous songs? Do you like covers version? Why is it necessary to translate well-known songs into other languages? What do you think about this story?
_______________________________________

Reference

• Pound, C. (2017, August 10). The erotic songs lost in translation. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170810-jane-birkin-reinvents-serge-gainsbourg-songs

Judging life and death

What I read 

Sir James said the approved care plan
was "not a matter for congratulation"

According to "Judge approves suicidal girl care plan" (2017), Sir James Munby has expressed his dissatisfaction that the family courts system he heads for England and Wales does not enable him to better help a suicidal 17 woman whose custody following her arrest six months ago has imposed substantial financial and emotional costs on the social services in charge of her. Also noting that accounts of similar cases were too common, Judge Munby said that his judgement last week, in which he said that there would be "blood on our hands" if state agencies did not do more to care for the woman "seemed to have had some effect."

_______________________________________ 

My response 
I would not normally have read this article, but having decided to write one more blog post responding to the news as an example, I came across this when I was browsing the "Health" section of the BBC News with my morning coffee. Similar to my earlier post on abortion rights in India, or the lack of legal abortion rights in India, there seemed to me a connection between this very sad story and our reading of Steven Law's "Carving the Roast Beast", and that was enough reason to choose it. It is also a relatively short article, although it still took me some time to write a summary I was happy with.

In order to protect the young woman, a lot of detail is missing, I suspect suppressed by order of the courts, although the article does not say that. I was wondering exactly what crime the young woman had been found guilty of, and whether there was any reason other than being under 18 that her case was being dealt with by the family courts part of the legal system. But those questions remain unanswered by the article.

I do think that when the state arrests people and puts them in prison, it has a moral obligation to ensure that the situation is decent. In Thailand, for example, not nearly enough money is spend to provide decent accommodation for the excessively large number of people who are crowded into Thai prisons designed for much smaller prison populations, and this is morally wrong. It is reasonable for a society to protect itself from harm by putting criminals in prison, but they must be kept in reasonable comfort and at the very least have enough space to live, not packed in like pigs or chickens on a CP industrial farm designed to maximise profit from suffering. I think human beings must be respected as human beings whatever crime they have committed, and many crimes, such as drug possession, cannot justify any prison sentence.

The lack of space causing morally wrong suffering is clearly not the case in the English system described in the article. On the contrary, the young woman has received a very substantial share of the expensive resources available, which has harmed the care provided to other people in custody. But I wonder whether the state has an obligation to keep people alive at great expense when they want to die, as this young woman apparently does: it is costing a lot of money and human resources to force her to live against her apparently consistent wish to die. A complicating factor is that she is only 17, but if she knows her own mind, why shouldn't she be allowed to die as she wishes, or even helped to do that in a more painless way than she seems to have already tried?

_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
What do you think? Should people who want to die be allowed to end their own lives, including with active assistance from doctors or other medical professionals if they ask for it?   

_______________________________________ 

Reference

• Judge approves suicidal girl care plan. (2017, August 7). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40855771