Apathy Song

I came across this song in my spare time and when I listened to the actual lyrics of the song I realised not only how beautiful the lyrics are, but also how they describe people whom are apathetic in terms of protesting. The song is about someone who is indifferent to the world, and does not feel anything: someone who is apathetic and impassive.

This is the song Let me in – Gabrielle Aplin: ENJOY!!!

LYRICS:

He doesn't make your knees weak.
He's beautiful and bleak.
He has a porcelain face that cracks when he speaks.
I go to start a conversation but I, get no reply
Instead you stare like a statue as I, break down and cry

Your face is like an eagle, but your mind's like a crow.
And boy, I know you have opinions, but you don’t let them show.
You're a shelf of books, without the pages.
A wealth of thoughts locked up in cages.
Locked up, locked up, locked up

And if blood runs through your veins,
Don't you suppose it's such a waste?
To be composed in such a way...
Just let me in

You write me letters in a pen with no ink
And you have your own eyes but you don't dare blink.
You speak in words without a sentence,
You're the ghost that haunts me without a presence.
Without a presence, without a presence

And if blood runs through your veins,
Don't you suppose it's such a waste?
To be composed in such a way...
Just let me in
Just let me in...

Occupy Wall Street Hand Signals

Wall Street protest signs

Verbatmin Definition

In class I came across a word that I did not know the meaning of, 
and therefore decided to do some further research into, and find
out exactly what it was. 

Definition for verbatim:

ver·ba·tim/vərˈbātəm/

• using exactly the same words; "he repeated her remarks verbatim"


• direct: in precisely the same words used by a writer or speaker; "a 
• direct quotation"; "repeated their dialog verbatim"

Adverb:	In exactly the same words as were used originally: "recite  the passage verbatim"; "verbatim quotes".
Synonyms:	literatim - word for word - verbally - literally

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verbatim

Definition for verbatim theatre:

Web  definitions:

Verbatim theatre is a form of documentary theatre in which  plays are constructed  from the precise words spoken by  people interviewed about a particular event or topic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbatim_theatre I then did some of my own personally research by going  to The National Theatre in Waterloo London with a few  of my friends to look into what exactly verbatim theatre  was. We found some very useful books in The National  Theatre bookshop and one specifically on verbatim. Myself and my friends found this book very useful, and I believe that after reading a few key extracts from the book I now have a much deeper understanding of 'vertabim' and 'vertabim theatre.' Friends with our star find at The National Theatre bookshop

Protest pieces

• Hand signals 
• 'Die in'
• 'Sit in'
• Human microphone
• Rope shape
• Teasing (child)
• Chalk chanting rage
• Sighs 
• Kettling 

• Referee - human microphone from start?

• Split grass - parent/child
• Physical representation of dividing line between parent and child - chalk? Red tape?
• Tents
• Masks
• Height - levels?
• Dress? Significant colours?
• Smoke bombs?
• Exaggerate movements
• Add monologue polemic intermittently

Occupy Protest Exercise

In today’s lesson we experimented with creating symbolic protests, that were based on the views of the occupy Wall Street movement protesters. As a stimuli we used the vertambin transcript that we had already completed as research on the occupy Wall Street movement.

In my group we used Sasha’s transcript because it was one of a very negative view of someone whom disagreed with the protesters. We used this because we believed it would be very effective and convey the stark contrast of protesters opinions to the audience. 

As Sasha read out his transcript (in an American accent) the rest of my group used the protest piece 'die in' which is much like a 'sit in' however differs in the aspect that instead of just sitting and occupying a space, the protesters feign death whilst occupying a space. During Sasha’s reading of his transcript one by one each member of my group stood up and said something that contradicted exactly what Sasha had just said (in an American accent). For example when Sasha said that the protesters smelled bad, Asa stood up and interrupted Sasha's speech by saying "We don't smell, it you who smells... Of dirty blood money!" After each individual had said their piece to Sasha we then began walking in a circle around him. Once all 5 other members of my group had come out of their 'die in' position, interrupted Sasha, and had began circling him we all came to a sudden stop at which point we all turned facing inwards surrounding Sasha and then reached out to one another and held hands, to represent us 'kettling' him, and then Sasha shouted at us "I am the one percent!" Then to slightly mimic and in a way mock the human microphone form of protest - we all chanted back "We are the ninety nine percent." After this Sasha slowly fell to the floor in a state of death, to reiterate the symbolism of death we had created at the beginning of our piece. The rest of my group, still in out circle surrounding Sasha, then let go of each other’s hands to form the "block" symbol by crossing both of our arms over our chests. After holding the "block" position for a moment to build tension we then all raised our right arms above our heads, and then slowly one by one walked away to indicate the ending of our piece.

I believe that this exercise was very useful because not only did it give us the opportunity to explore and demonstrate some of the various different forms of protests, it also enabled us to devise our own protest from scratch. We had complete artistic power and control over what we chose to do with our given stimuli, and in my opinion this allowed me as an individual to explore and experiment with lots of various different ideas, and to take on an authoritative decisive role in my group. I also then had the opportunity to refine my various ideas and choose the specific ones that I believed would make them most impact on the audience. The whole idea of choosing which different forms of protest you are going to use is so that you can individually come to the realization (As I myself did) that you should not choose a form just because it is aesthetically pleasing or easy to perform, you should however choose forms of protest that you decide and greatly beneficial to the point you are trying to make, and also have a deep impact on the audience. Overall, I found this exercise very fun and enjoyable, as well as learning a lot and exploring the various different ways of protesting.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Flaws

Protesters With Attention Deficit Disorder

I know there's no shortage of things wrong with our country right now, but your movement has its greatest strength if you focus your energies. Let's be specific. Can we start with taxation? You saw the video, right? Taxes on the super rich are generating less income now than they did under earlier Republican Presidents of years ago. And still there's no guarantee anything will change. Again, see the reaction to Obama's tax proposal. But unlike children dreaming of the impossible and possibly undesirable task of changing the nature of capitalism itself, let's focus on something feasible. A new tax structure is possible because it's not new. It's just a question of putting the goal posts where they used to be. And maybe if your support can help change minds, empower the political left, and get something tangible passed, people will no longer be able to discredit you or feign ignorance at your agenda. And you can move on to the next thing from there.

And if you can't keep it just to taxes, can we at least keep the topic to the economy? I know there is no formal list of demands, but at one site, there is a "living document" of demands that range from changing the tax structure to ending on the war on drugs. And in other forums, protesters encourage others to add to and adjust demands. The merit or lack thereof of each of those demands is not the point. The point is focus and insistence on reasonable demands that will grow your numbers.

Focus is hard when there are so many factors causing such a bad situation for so many. And I know it's impossible to expect specific solutions to an entire global economic meltdown, but the better and smarter your behavior, the more your numbers will grow. The more people who are working two jobs for half of what they made three years ago will join you. The fact that liars will lie about your goals and your members does not give you a blank check to raise the ante on the rhetoric getting bigger and louder. Instead, it's a time for increasingly focused, clear-headed behavior. Reasonable, logical demands over and over again until the Sean Hannitys and Ann Coulters of the world look increasingly ridiculous for perpetuating a myth that anyone who thinks our current system is broken is somehow un-American. Because not even they will be able to say that forever. Not when millions of people from every race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political group and age are worried about affording food, paying the rent, and sending their kids to school.

That's why I think the biggest threat to your movement are those of you who would hijack, marginalize, or radicalize the message. It's time for the best of you to move to the front of the line and speak for the millions more waiting to join.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-types-wall-street-protesters-hurting-their-own-cause_p2/#ixzz2Ci0dTvFH

Occupy Wall Street Transcript

                                                     Jesse LaGreca

“Right now we are in the intervention stage where the wealthiest one percent - a few of these guys - the wealthiest one percent have just gotten drunk on power, have just gotten drunk on greed, and self importance, and this is our national intervention - to kinda talk them down from this abusive behavior  that they are inflicting on all their other family and friends. Once we are able to voice our grievances -and be able to take that cacophony of grievances and just simmer it down to some basic boiler points, then we can really start talking about prescribing a cure...”

                       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaez72MicwM

                                              2.41-3.09

Occupy Wall Street Research

"The Occupy Movement is an international protest movement against social and economic equality, its primary goal being to make the economic structure and power relations in society fairer. Local groups often have different foci, but among the movement's prime concerns is the claim that large corporations and the global financial system control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy and is unstable."

Occupy Wall Street Interviews

Occupy Wall Street News Article

Nation-World

What is the purpose of the Occupy  Wall Street protests? Schuyler Velasco | The Christian Science Monitor | Oct 03, 2011 In New York, they're dressing up as zombies. In San Francisco, they surrounded a bank. A small, simmering protest that started in Manhattan’s financial district last month has suddenly inspired  a rash of protests against Wall Street greed and influence in cities around the United States. Called Occupy Wall Street, the infant movement is tapping into broad frustration and even anger  about big corporate profits, tax breaks for the rich, corporate lobbying in Congress, and bank bailouts at a time when the poor and middle class are losing ground in a generally sour economy. “It really speaks to everyone getting fed up and tired of these corporations taking every bit of money we’ve worked so hard for,” says Brandon German, a protest organizer with Right to the City, an alliance of community groups that helped organize an Occupy Wall Street rally in Boston on Friday. “People are fed up and mobilizing.” In all, “Occupy” protests have taken place or are planned in more than 50 cities from San Francisco to Portland, Maine, according to the website occupytogether.org, which is serving as  an unofficial organizing hub for the protests. Some are big events. More than 700 people were arrested Saturday when protestors marched across the Brooklyn Bridge. Some are small. In Chicago, about 30 protestors beat drums in the city’s financial district Monday. But by attracting such a broad array of supporters – with a host of different causes – can the protests spark a  movement coalesced around a specific message? Here in Boston, protesters on Monday marched from a tent city on a grassy plot of land across  the street from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to the Statehouse to call for an end of corporate control of government, the Associated Press reported. The march followed a Friday  event where an estimated 3,000 people took to the streets to stage a sit-in in the downtown offices of Bank of America, whose mortgage foreclosure practices have come under fire from groups around the city. “Bank of America has more home foreclosures than any other bank in Boston. They have the  largest number of foreclosed properties in the country, and the worst record of modifying mortgages,” says Mr. German. “Some of the hardest hit areas in the country are around Boston, including the Roxbury, Dorchester, East Boston and, Chelsea” neighborhoods. One of the protesters, Antonio Ennis of Dorchester, Mass., has been fighting a Bank of America’s  foreclosure since 2009. His triple decker, which is home to him, his fiancée, three of his six  daughters, and two tenant families, now carries a mortgage loan debt that far outpaces the actual value of his home, in which he has lived for his entire life. “I’ve been trying to get a loan modification, but right now Bank of America is refusing to lower the principle,” Mr. Ennis says. “My house is unaffordable at the current inflated rate. If they would lower the principle to its real value, I could afford it.” If evicted, Mr. Ennis isn’t sure where he’ll go. “My family is too big for my mother’s house,” he says. But among the marchers themselves, his message tends to get a little lost. Ennis was marching with union leaders and socialists – an estimated 35 different community organizations around Boston – with various causes and concerns only loosely connected with foreclosures. Although Occupy Boston’s official target was  Bank of America, with marchers chanting “Bank of America: bad for America!,” the Friday march also made stops at the Hyatt (protesting the hotel chain’s 2009 firings of many of its longtime housekeeping staff) and a Verizon store, chanting “Shame on Verizon!” over the mobile phone company’s union contract disputes earlier this summer. “If you look at Occupy Wall Street, for example, the demonstrators have been very unfocused  in their demands,” says David Meyer, a professor of sociology at the University of California at Irvine, whose studies focus on social movements and political sociology. “But they’ve gotten  attention. People hear about stuff, they start thinking of themselves as potential activists. So  the Occupy Wall Street frame becomes a holder for all of these other grievances, and other groups are filling the framework with their own ideas.” If the financial crisis began in earnest three years ago, why has it taken so long for large-scale  protests of corporate deeds and influence to take hold? The hesitation may stem from the  fact that President Obama is a Democrat. “We haven’t been seeing it on the left, because it’s hard when your guy is in power,” Dr. Meyer  says. “People are more likely to air their grievances to their lawmakers. We saw it earlier on the  right with the tea party, but it might be happening on the left now because people feel like they  aren't getting enough from Obama.” http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/what-purpose-occupy-wall-street-protests

Defamiliarization

Defamiliarization or ostranenie is the artistic technique of forcing the audience to see common things in an unfamiliar or strange way, in order to enhance perception of the familiar. A central concept in 20th century art and theory, ranging over movements including Dada, postmodernism, epic theatre, and science fiction, it is also used as a tactic by recent movements such as Culture jamming.

Defamiliarization of that which is or has become familiar or taken for granted, hence automatically perceived, is the basic function of all devices. And with defamiliarization come both the slowing down and the increased difficulty (impeding) of the process of reading and comprehending and an awareness of the artistic procedures (devices) causing them. (Margolin 2005)

The technique appears in English Romantic poetry, particularly in the poetry of Wordsworth, and was defined in the following way bySamuel Taylor Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria: "To carry on the feelings of childhood into the powers of manhood; to combine the child’s sense of wonder and novelty with the appearances which every day for perhaps forty years had rendered familiar [. . .] this is the character and privilege of genius."

In more recent times, it has been associated with the poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht, whose Verfremdungseffekt ("alienation effect") was a potent element of his approach to theater. Brecht, in turn, has been highly influential for artists and filmmakers including Jean-Luc Godard and Yvonne Rainer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamiliarization

Verfremdungseffekt: The distancing effect

The distancing effect, more commonly known (earlier) by John Willett's 1964 translation the alienation effect or (more recently) as the estrangement effect (German: Verfremdungseffekt), is a performing arts concept coined by playwright Bertolt Brecht "which prevents the audience from losing itself passively and completely in the character created by the actor, and which consequently leads the audience to be a consciously critical observer."^[1] Brecht's term describes the aesthetics of his epic theatre.

The distancing effect is achieved by the way the "artist never acts as if there were a fourth wall besides the three surrounding him [...] The audience can no longer have the illusion of being the unseen spectator at an event which is really taking place" (Willett 91). The use of direct audience-address is one way of disrupting stage illusion and generating the distancing effect. In performance, as the performer "observes himself," his objective is "to appear strange and even surprising to the audience. He achieves this by looking strangely at himself and his work" (Willett 92). Whether Brecht intended the distancing effect to refer to the audience or to the actor or to both audience and actor is still controversial among teachers and scholars of "Epic Acting" and Brechtian theatre.

By disclosing and making obvious the manipulative contrivances and "fictive" qualities of the medium, the actors alienate the viewer from any passive acceptance and enjoyment of the play as mere "entertainment." Instead, the viewer is forced into a critical, analytical frame of mind that serves to disabuse him or her of the notion that what he is watching is necessarily an inviolable, self-contained narrative. This effect of making the familiar strange serves a didactic function insofar as it teaches the viewer not to take the style and content for granted, since the medium itself is highly constructed and contingent upon many cultural and economic conditions.

It may be noted that Brecht’s use of distancing effects in order to prevent audience members from bathing themselves in empathetic emotions and to draw them into an attitude of critical judgment may lead to other reactions than intellectual coolness. Brecht's popularization of the V-Effekt has come to dominate our understanding of its dynamics. But the particulars of a spectator’s psyche and of the tension aroused by a specific alienating device may actually increase emotional impact.^[7] Audience reactions are rarely uniform, and there are many diverse, sometimes unpredictable, responses that may be achieved through distancing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfremdungseffekt 

After doing some of my own personal research outside of lesson time into what exactly 'defamiliarization' is, I came to the conclusion that in my opinion this acting technique has merit to it, and in terms of political theatre it is essential in achieveing the aim of evoking an audiences reaction, however personally I believe that this essentially takes the fun out of acting.

Euthanasia protest rehearsal notes

Me and my group were assigned the task of doing a protest on the topic of 'Legalizing Euthanasia in the United Kingdom', because it was a subject myself and my fellow protesters felt very strongly about. 

The legalization of euthanasia or mercy killing to end suffering painlessly has been one of the heated discussions in many countries around the word. Many terminally-ill patients do not have a possibility to recover, but the laws of various different countries (http://politicalthe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/laws-on-euthanasia.html) do not allow doctors to end their lives. In my opinion, the governments should legalize euthanasia for a number of reasons.

The primary reason is legalizing euthanasia helps the patients alleviate their pain, suffering, and depression. Individuals have the liberty right, which includes the right of owing their death. For instance, the patients who have some terrible disease must be trapped with hospital bed with miserable pain each day. They do not want to endure it, but instead, they wish to assuage it. It is clear that patients’ decision to ask for a cessation in treatment, reflecting their own preference for death rather than for a continuation of discomfort or suffering. Therefore, that individual’s decision should be carried out because they have that right to their own personal decisions, which is only one of many reasons why euthanasia should be legalized.

Another reason is the mercy killing can reduce inconveniences, emotional and physical burdens, and drawbacks imposed on family members, relatives, and friends of patients. Apart from the miserable pain that the patients suffer, the trauma and the emotional havoc their relatives go through is also immense. Besides, their family members may be sensitive to the costs accumulating during terminal care. Consequently, patients may feel guilty in this entire ordeal, may even become more severely ill. Obviously, the patients will not need to worry about their family and their pain anymore once euthanasia is performed.

Like any other issue, there are opposing viewpoints regarding the legalization of euthanasia. Pro-lifers, people who are against euthanasia, consider that euthanasia violate the right to life. Furthermore, religious opponents disagree because they believe that the right to decide when a person dies belongs to God. However, we should recognize that suffering is an inevitable part of life and our task is to understand and grow from suffering, cannot evade it. In fact, if you put yourself in their shoes, would you want to die? Chances are, you would comprehend what feelings of depressing pain are and what they hope at that time.

In conclusion, euthanasia should be permitted for the individual liberty and general benefits of society. Although objections to euthanasia still remain legalization of this mercy killing is morally acceptable.

Civil Disobediance

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/civil-disobedience-different-other-protest

The American thinker Henry David Thoreau probably coined the term "civil disobedience," but he was far from the first to utilize this technique of protest to affect change. Thoreau spent one night in the Concord, Mass., jail in 1848 for refusing to pay his poll tax. He said he did not want his money used to support the Mexican War and the institution of slavery. By this nonviolent protest, Thoreau joined a long line of folks who defied the laws in hopes of changing society. Some ancient Greeks -- notably Socrates -- explored the principle of obeying one's sense of right rather than following the letter of the law, and you could say the colonial Americans who carried out the Boston Tea Party were engaging in an act of civil disobedience, though the colonists eventually moved on to more un-civil disobedience.

Beginning in the early 1900s, Mohandas Gandhi adopted civil disobedience as his method of protest against the British colonial oppression of the Indian people. He took some of his ideas from Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount," which includes the lines "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." With the help of Gandhi's example, India eventually obtained independence from Great Britain, and, amazingly, India and Great Britain experienced subsequent alliances and partnerships. Gandhi called his principles "satyagraha," which means "the force that is generated through adherence to the truth"  At the core of Gandhi's movement was his belief that if you are willing to suffer hardship, even imprisonment, for a belief, you will eventually win over the people on the other side. Gandhi called it a "change of heart." If your cause is just, he and his followers believed, eventually the truth will win out and justice will prevail. This separates nonviolent civil disobedience from violent forms of protest -- it requires the protester to hold the moral advantage in the struggle, and it is partially designed to demonstrate the moral authority of the oppressed person or group. A violent protest or resistance movement, however, can be successful and accomplish its goals whether those goals are righteous or not.

Just a few years after Gandhi's assassination, the Rev. Martin Luther King, who had long admired "the Mahatma," put the Indian leader's principle of nonviolence to work in leading the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott. Rosa Parks' act of civil disobedience in refusing to let a white man have her seat on a public transit bus sparked the boycott. The boycott went on for 13 months until the United States Supreme Court ruled that segregated transportation was unconstitutional. Many would say that this protest was successful in part because the protesters had the moral authority and made it obvious with their peaceful tactics.

Laws on Euthanasia

DIFFERENT COUNTRIES LAWS ON EUTHANASIA

Japan

The Japanese government has no official laws on the status of euthanasia and the Supreme Court of Japan has never ruled on the matter. Rather, to date, Japan's euthanasia policy has been decided by two local court cases, one in Nagoya in 1962, and another after an incident at Tokai University in 1995. The first case involved "passive euthanasia" (消極的安楽死 shōkyokuteki anrakushi^?) (i.e., allowing a patient to die by turning off life support) and the latter case involved "active euthanasia" (積極的安楽死 sekkyokuteki anrakushi^?) (e.g., through injection). The judgments in these cases set forth a legal framework and a set of conditions within which both passive and active euthanasia could be legal. Nevertheless, in both of these particular cases the doctors were found guilty of violating these conditions when taking the lives of their patients. Further, because the findings of these courts have yet to be upheld at the national level, these precedents are not necessarily binding. Nevertheless, at present, there is a tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in Japan.^[11]
In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:

1. the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease, and in the final stages of the disease from which he/she is unlikely to make a recovery;
2. the patient must give express consent to stopping treatment, and this consent must be obtained and preserved prior to death. If the patient is not able to give clear consent, their consent may be determined from a pre-written document such as a living will or the testimony of the family;
3. the patient may be passively euthanized by stopping medical treatment, chemotherapy, dialysis, artificial respiration, blood transfusion, IV drip, etc.

For active euthanasia, four conditions must be met:

1. the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;
2. death must be inevitable and drawing near;
3. the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)
4. the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief.

The problems that arose from this, in addition to the problem faced by many other families in the country, has led to the creation of "bioethics SWAT teams".^[12]These teams will be made available to the families of terminally ill patients in order to help them, along with the doctors, come to a decision based on the personal facts of the case. Though in its early stages and relying on “subsidies from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare” there are plans to create a nonprofit organization to “allow this effort to continue.” ^[13]

Switzerland

Main article: Euthanasia in Switzerland

In Switzerland, deadly drugs may be prescribed to a Swiss person or to a foreigner, where the recipient takes an active role in the drug administration.^[26] More generally, article 115 of the Swiss penal code, which came into effect in 1942 (having been written in 1918), considers assisting suicide a crime if and only if the motive is selfish.

United Kingdom

Main article: Euthanasia in the United Kingdom

Euthanasia is illegal in the United Kingdom. Any person found to be assisting suicide is breaking the law and can be convicted of assisting suicide or attempting to do so.^[27][28] Between 2003 and 2006 Lord Joffe made four attempts to introduce bills that would have legalized voluntary euthanasia - all were rejected by the UK Parliament.^[29] Currently, Dr Nigel Cox is the only British doctor to have been convicted of attempted euthanasia. He was given a 12 month suspended sentence in 1992.^[30]
In regard to the principle of double effect, in 1957 Judge Devlin in the trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams ruled that causing death through the administration of lethal drugs to a patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is not considered murder even if death is a potential or even likely outcome.^[31]

United States

Main article: Euthanasia in the United States

See also: Assisted suicide in the United States

Active euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths. Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate. The Supreme Court of the United States has not dealt with "quality of life issues" or "futility issues" and appears to only condone active or passive "euthanasia" (not legally defined) when there is clear and convincing evidence that informed consent to the euthanasia, passive or active, has been obtained from the competent patient or the legal surrogate of the incompetent patient.
While active euthanasia is illegal throughout the US, assisted suicide is legal in three states: Oregon, Washington and Montana.^[32]

Non-governmental organizations

There are a number of historical studies about the thorough euthanasia-related policies of professional associations. In the Academy of Neurology (AAN).^[33] In their analysis, Brody et al. found it necessary to distinguish such topics as euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, informed consent and refusal, advance directives, pregnant patients, surrogate decision-making (including neonates), DNR orders, irreversible loss of consciousness, quality of life (as a criterion for limiting end-of-life care), withholding and withdrawing intervention, and futility. Similar distinctions presumably are found outside the U.S., as with the highly contested statements of the British Medical Association.^[34][35]
On euthanasia (narrowly-defined here as directly causing death), Brody sums up the U.S. medical NGO arena:

The debate in the ethics literature on euthanasia is just as divided as the debate on physician-assisted suicide, perhaps more so. Slippery-slope arguments are often made, supported by claims about abuse of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.... Arguments against it are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, autonomy and quality-of-life-base arguments are made in support of euthanasia, underscored by claims that when the only way to relieve a dying patient's pain or suffering is terminal sedation with loss of consciousness, death is a preferable alternative -- an argument also made in support of physician-assisted suicide.^[36]

Other NGOs that advocate for and against various euthanasia-related policies are found throughout the world. Among proponents, perhaps the leading NGO is the UK's Dignity in Dying, the successor to the (Voluntary) Euthanasia Society.^[37] In addition to professional and religious groups, there are NGOs opposed to euthanasia^[38] found in various countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia#United_Kingdom