Healthy diet.

'Supersize Me'

supersize me definitely a good movie where it shows the effects of consuming too much fast food, to be specific, Mc Donald's fast food. Imagine eating fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Imagine how much calories we consumed per day!
Only 1 out of 4 dieticians, nutrionist says we only consume fast food 3 times in a year and others says we should never eat fas food.
eating too much fast food will make us lazy, depressed and suprisingly it makes us addicted just like tobacco or nicotine. If nicotine and tobacco are banned why not fast food? which is the 2nd major caused of death in this world.(obesity)
But what i learned from this movie is that we should practised balance diet, do not simply cut your carbohydrated just limit them! :)
Does government plays important role in our health? well i think they did take responsibility to our health but they dont take it seriously. They are more intersted in how much this fast food, unhealthy restaurants brings to the economy.
But there are many ways the government can do to promote health to citizens, for example make more advertisement on healthy food example sushi, raw food , veggies instead of
Mc Donald's, KFC, Ideal or ayamku advertisement.
-limits the number of fast food restaurants.
- increase the price of the fast food and make veggies and sushi cheaper.:)
-banned the extra large size of the fast food. etc




'

What have you learned from the movie "supersize me"?

In my understanding, the word 'supersize me' means enlarging the size of your body..hmm am I right??(hehehe I am not sure). Anyway the movie that sir had shown us the other day has tought me and made me aware about the bad consequences of fast food for example from KFC, A.Ayam, Ayamku and recently the most popular fast food in Brunei is 'NASI KATOK'! Have you ever realised that 'nasi katok' is also fast food??? Think and ask yourself...

When I wathched that movie, I was so surprised that fast food may lead to very fatal and lethal diseases like hypertension and OBESE! But luckily i am not that kind of person who always eat fast food though. So i don't really have the problem regarding obesity (I think so...). The bad circumstances from eating fast food made me realise that fast food is not good for our body and thus in my opinion we shouldn't eat fast food very often or maybe do not eat fast food at all.

In my point of view, both the government and the citizens themsevlves need to take more responsibility towards their health. This is because if only the government take an action on the health's problem, this may not cause the problem to 'recede' but in fact it may rise up the problem. Therefore both the government and the citizens SHOULD take the responsibility of their health.

Ther are many ways in which the government can do in order to enhance the healthy lives of the citizens. One of the ways is that to reduce the number of fast food restaurants or 'Nasi Katok' stalls (hehehe...) particularly in Brunei. This is because as most fast foods contains more prcentage of unhealthy ingredients which may lead to obesity and other fatal diseases, therefore this action has to be taken. This is to also to make people realise how unhealthy it is to eat less nutritious food.

Next solution is that to hold physical activites or exercises at appropriate places every week. This is because apart from to reduce the chance of every person having a problem in obesity, it also can teach the citizens on how to live in a healthy way. Although in Brunei the population of those who are in obese is not that high but we have to be aware of that problem as Brunei is the 44th position of the fattest country around the world!

The other solution is that to make a new regulation that each person should make a medical check every month and do not eat fast food more that five times annually. Thus can reduce the health problem of the citizens.

Storm the Health with the Government intervention.

Do you think the government or state should take more responsibility on their citizens' health? Honestly, in my opinion, it would be advisable for the state to take vast amount of responsibility to the citizens' health since the people itself might not have self knowledge of the importants of eating a healthy diet and the dangers of eating junk food for their daily meals everyday.

Figurative, it is by the action of the state to take a big step and clarify tha nation about the prospective of a prolong life if the citizen to live in a healthy lifestyle. Therefore, the actions needed to be done by the state are.

First, they have to spread health education or health programme to all the schools in the country. It would be even better when started at primary schools. this would give self aware to the children as they develop into pre-adult then they would be prepare in advance and had they own choice or more like decision making: when to eat? what to eat?

Second, all the cafeteria at the school would have to change what the meal is being serve so instead of junk it has to well balance diet food. Eventually, the children ot the tender age would be able to recognise the benefits of eating foods healthily.

In conclusion, eat healtily and you might ended up having the best of years and it all thanks to the state.

Fad Diets

The phrase "fad diets" typically refers to diets that promote a restricted eating-plan which is unhealthy and/or lacking in sufficient calories. Certain liquid-only diets (fasts) are promoted as healthful diets but in reality are merely fad diets. Common examples of fad diets include, the Cabbage Soup Diet and the Grapefruit Diet.

Quick weight loss diets, now more than ever, seem to be flooding over the population. Everyone wants to lose 15 pounds in two weeks and not have to do any work to get the pounds off. There are many new fads that are available to try out, but do they work?

An article in “Good Housekeeping,” by Maura Rhodes, called “America’s Top 6 Fad Diets,” seemed to bring up some good points about these diets. Fad diets all work on drastic calorie cutting. They deprive your body of essential nutrients and cause the body’s metabolism to slow down.

Diets such as the Dr. Atkins’ Diet Revolution and The Complete Scarsdale Medical Diet are high protein diets. This diet requires you to eat all the protein you want, meat, fish, eggs, cheese, you just are restricted from pastas, breads, and anything with refined sugar. This low carbohydrate diet could seem good at first but according to the article by Maura Rhodes, these diets are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol, which can increase the risk of heart disease.

P.S Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.

Fad diets-are they effective ways to lose weight? or are they the dark side of weight loss?

Fad diet is simply a weight loss diet that becomes very popular (often quickly) and then may fall out of favor (sometimes just as quickly). Fad diet is not relly good for our body. Why is this so??

This is because although we manage to lose weight for two moths by controlling the food that we eat, after that we might be unable to do the diet again. As a result, we keep on eating and start to gain more and more weight. Thus this is so useless.

Apart from thatif we restrict the food that we eat, it may affect the our body. This we will becom an unhealthy people. If we are unhealthy therefore we will be easily become sick. Thus it affects our daily routine. Basically fad diets are really harmful to us.

Here I would like to suggest a healthy diet for those people who are on diet. In order to have a heathy and successive diet we must do any physical exercises for at least once a week. i know it is easy to say than done but yeah if you want to have hot body(hahahaha) why not just do it for your own good right?? Then the second one is to eat healthy food. When we eat healthy food, our body will become healthier and we will rarely get sicked so why not start to eat healthy food from now. The third one is . . . .think yourself what are other good solutions. I am not fat though so i don't have to think about wanting to the diet hahahaha

These foods are high in carbohydrates and should be avoided:
Breads
Cereals
Grains
Sugars
Candy
Pasta
Rice
Anything with Flour
Non-diet soda
Juice
Fruit
Potato (potatoe if your name is Dan Quayle)
Chips
Alcohol
Beer (dammit this diet is no good!)

FAD diets -are they effective ways to lose weights? or are they the dark side of weight lose

The definition of a fad diet is very subjective. Many people use the term to deride what they consider is a poor weight loss diet. However a fad diet is simply a weight loss diet that becomes very popular (often quickly) and then may fall out of favor (sometimes just as quickly).

There are differents types of fad diets. chocloate diets. chicken soup diets, metabolism diet etc. Some may find it work, some not. But most nutritionist and doctors do not encourage their patient to simply practised it And it is not a good idea to practised crash diet over a long period of time. It is unhealthy and lacking in sufficient calories and nutritions.

But does FAD diets really works? well it depends what you mean by "work." Any very-low-calorie diet will cause weight loss in most people. Since most fad diets are very low in calories they typically cause quite fast weight loss. However, quick weight loss may not be healthy and - in most cases - is not fat loss. It is usually mostly water-loss which is quickly regained when the dieter resumes normal eating.

Most fad diets are typically short-term diet plans. Not only are they low in calories but their menus are likely to be monotonous and lacking in adequate nutrition. Some fad diets are designed to last no more than a few days - as if a 2 or 3 day diet program is likely to help solve a weight problem!!

Some fad diets claim to contain special "fat-burning" or "negative calorie" diet foods. Unfortunately, there is no clinical evidence that foods have these special properties.

Fad dieting can sometimes lead to weight-cycling or yo-yo dieting - that is, weight loss, followed by regain, followed by weight loss then regain etc. New research suggests that such weight cycling may lead to obesity.

Avoid fad diets and fad dieting. Instead, eat a balanced diet that includes foods from ALL food groups. Eating a balanced calorie-controlled diet is not only more appealing but also more likely to help you develop the sort of good eating habits that lead to permanent weight loss.

Obesity: A Global Issue.

Obesity means accumulation of excess fat on the body. Obesity is considered a chronic (long-term) disease, like high blood pressure or diabetes. It has many serious long-term consequences for your health, and it is the second leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States (tobacco is the first). Obesity is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of greater than 30. The BMI is a measure of your weight relative to your height. .

Obesity is an epidemic in the United States and in other developed countries. More than half of Americans are overweight—including at least 1 in 5 children. Nearly one third are obese. Obesity is on the rise in our society because food is abundant and physical activity is optional.
Each year, Americans spend billions of dollars on dieting, diet foods, diet books, diet pills, and the like. Another $45 billion is spent on treating the diseases associated with obesity. Furthermore, businesses suffer an estimated $20 billion loss in productivity each year from absence due to illness caused by obesity.

Obesity is no longer an exclusively Western problem. Researchers say weight problems also pose a serious health threat to people in developing nations, particularly children. Until recently, famine and infectious diseases have been the biggest threats to the health of poor people in developing countries. Now, rapid shifts in urbanisation, technology, food processing and even leisure time in developing countries are causing a rise in obesity levels.

More than 1.2 billion people in the world are now officially classified as overweight, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Since the publication in the British Medical Journal of new standards for evaluating children's weight, health officials around the world have begun estimating their childhood obesity rates. The Chinese government calculates that 1 in 10 city-dwelling children are now obese. In Japan, obesity in nine-year-old children has tripled. The WHO reports that approximately 20 per cent of Australian children and adolescents are overweight or obese.

Paradoxically, childhood malnutrition and stunted growth may be found hand-in-hand with adult obesity in many places. The phenomenon means countries that still face problems of under-nutrition also need to pay attention to the prevention of obesity-related illnesses, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

Obesity is one of the major caused of millions of death throughout the year. How do we define obesity? Obesity is condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and other mammals, exceeds healthy limits. It is commonly defined as a body mass index (weight divided by height squared) of 30 kg/m2 or higher.
Those who faced obesity are usually lacked of confidence. People usually teased and called their by names. This can affects them physically and mentally. So obese people are usually sensitive.
There are many causes of obesity. Common cause would be high assumption of food with high sugar level or carbohydrate. (ie unbalanced diet) meaning less intake of vegetables, vitamins or fruits. People tend to eat fatty food or fast food which is high in cholestrol, this is the major caused of obesity.
Obesity tends to run in families. Some people have a genetic tendency to gain weight more easily than others because they burn calories more slowly. During times when food was scarce, this was a real advantage. But now that food is available 24/7 in most industrialized countries, an efficient metabolism that once ensured our survival now works to our disadvantage.
Although genes strongly influence body type and size, the environment also plays a role. People today may be gaining weight because of unhealthy food choices (like fast food) and family habits (like eating in front of the television instead of around a table). High-calorie, low-nutrient snacks and beverages, bigger portions of food, and less-active lifestyles are all contributing to the obesity epidemic.
Sometimes people turn to food for emotional reasons, such as when they feel upset, anxious, sad, stressed out, or even bored. When this happens, they often eat more than they need.
Obesity is bad news for both body and mind. Not only can it make a person feel tired and uncomfortable, carrying extra weight puts added stress on the body, especially the bones and joints of the legs. As they get older, kids and teens who are overweight are more likely to develop diabetes and heart disease.
There are2 types of diabetes.Type 2 diabetes and obese children. And there are many consequences of diabetes type 2, this include some cancers, sleep disorder. asthma and gall bladders problem.
obese chidren tend to get bowed less and flat feet, early puberty,physical maturation acne depresion and low self esteem.
Luckily, it's never too late to make changes that can effectively control weight and the health problems it causes. Those changes don't have to be big. For a start, make a plan to cut back on sugary beverages, pass up on seconds, and get more exercise, even if it's just 5–10 minutes a day. Build your way up to big changes by making a series of small ones. And don't be afraid to ask for help!

Obesity: A global Issue

Obesity is a prevalent issue around the world. According to the statistics from Brunei Times newspaper, USA got the highest percentage of obese people while Korea got the lowest. How about Brunei?? What do you think? Roughly Brunei is the 44th country which has a high percentage of obese people. Is it good or bad?? Think yourself if you are one of them.

This means that there are a lot of obese people around the world and it is so alarming. If we don't try to 'alleviate' it, this will create a bad circumstance. Thus certain authorities need to take an action including us. why do we have to reduce the number of people who are in obese problem? This is because obesity may create a lots of problems to people.

Obesity may cause diabetes mellitus. For example; people who are having this problem are rich in sugar in their body. Thus this problem is fatal and maybe lethal. High amount of sugar in our body may lead to fatigue, blindness, tiredness, etc. Apart fom that blood clotting is becoming slower and this is easy for the bacteria to get into the injured part of the body. Usually if the injured part is getting worse, it will be chopped off to prevent any worse things to occur.

The second problem is that obesity may cause the obese people to become hardly to move. For instance; If that people want to do any work, they prefer to do it at one place i.e they don't need to move to another place. This is because they feel heavy to 'bring' their body fom one place to another and they easily get tired. So to avoid that, they have to just stay at one place to do any tasks.

How can we solve this problem? One of the solutions is that to give a forum or lecture about the consequences of obesity. This lecture should be opened to the publics as to bring awareness to the people in country about how atrocious it is to be in obesity. Apart form that the lecture can also be held at school as nowadays parents tend to pamper their children to eat more unhealthy food like chocolates and other things that may cause obesity.

The second solution is that to carry out physical exercises once at least once a week at any appropriate places for the publics.

Obesity:A Global Issue

Global issue is in a sense that make people want to grab on the most attribute informations of today's world. In hindrance to the fact that they want to be involve on the political arena to insist in giving opinions on certain that might relate to their eveyday lifes. On contrary, if society were to continue this prastised of mendling one else businee then that's what I called the kind of people that sort-of-way as nonsensen if you get my drift of view on society nowadays. On the course of topic that people seem discussed is obesity. yew, ladies and gerntlement.

The topic or issues regarding obesity seems to be the hunger point of people who wanted to consume this huge chunk of article:'Obesity'. Wherever you go, you are in the circle of humanity: you would feel people or something analysed you from a distant. They judged you and articulate whether or not you are part of this speciment that might give the special intention ot those that seek for the information of obesity-whether you are fat or not?

Literally, my directions of words seem to confused in a great deal of waste amounts if ever were that's the case. in order to avoid misconcept of the definition of obesity then I shall list the issues regarding obesity therefore here are the lists.

Number of People With Obesity Rivals World’s Hungry
In the poverty section primarily, but also in other parts of this web site, much has been written about the causes of hunger in the face of abundant food production due to things like land use, political and economic causes, etc. However, there is another side to this emerging as well. That is growing obesity. The World Watch Institute is worth quoting at length:
For the first time in human history, the number of overweight people rivals the number of underweight people.… While the world’s underfed population has declined slightly since 1980 to 1.1 billion, the number of overweight people has surged to 1.1 billion.
… the population of overweight people has expanded rapidly in recent decades, more than offsetting the health gains from the modest decline in hunger. In the United States, 55 percent of adults are overweight by international standards. A whopping 23 percent of American adults are considered obese. And the trend is spreading to children as well, with one in five American kids now classified as overweight.… [O]besity cost the United States 12 percent of the national health care budget in the late 1990s, $118 billion, more than double the $47 billion attributable to smoking.
… Overweight and obesity are advancing rapidly in the developing world as well … [while] 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses.
… technofixes like liposuction or olestra attract more attention than the behavioral patterns like poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles that underlie obesity. Liposuction is now the leading form of cosmetic surgery in the United States, for example, at 400,000 operations per year. While billions are spent on gimmicky diets and food advertising, far too little money is spent on nutrition education.

Chronic Hunger and Obesity Epidemic; Eroding Global Progress, World Watch Institute, March 4, 2000 (Emphasis added)
In the above, note also how many resources are “wasted” or diverted to either deal with the ramifications (such as health costs), or to deal with the symptoms (via techniques such as liposuction). Of course, that is not to say that resources should not be spent on these things at all, but that it is far more cost effective and more desirable to treat the root causes, as treating symptoms only leaves underlying causes in tact.
This is an example of “hidden” costs of consumption on top of the “visible” costs. The World Watch Institute article, quoted above, goes on to further show that comparatively less expensive measures that deal with causes have been very effective at reducing obesity problems, such as teaching nutritional literacy in schools.
The BBC revealed that food wastage is enormous. In the United Kingdom, some astonishing 30-40% of all food is never eaten, while in the US, some 40-50% of all food ready for harvest never gets eaten. UK alone sees some £20 billion ($38 billion US dollars) worth of food thrown away each year. Furthermore, the additional rotting food creates methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Obesity Affects Poor as well as Rich
Obesity also affects the poor as well, due to things like marketing of unhealthy foods as the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) highlights. “Restrictions in access to food determine two simultaneous phenomena that are two sides of the same coin: poor people are malnourished because they do not have enough to feed themselves, and they are obese because they eat poorly, with an important energy imbalance… The food they can afford is often cheap, industrialized, mass produced, and inexpensive.”
Award-winning journalist Michael Pollan, commenting in an interview on the problem for America’s poor, notes that basic crops such as corn and soybeans are used to such an extent that many unhealthy and processed foods are created from them, at a subsidized rate, thus contributing to the problem:
Because we subsidize those calories, we end up with a supermarket in which the least healthy calories are the cheapest. And the most healthy calories are the most expensive. That, in the simplest terms, is the root of the obesity epidemic for the poor—because the obesity epidemic is really a class-based problem. It’s not an epidemic, really. The biggest prediction of obesity is income.
— Blair Golson, America’s Eating Disorder, Alternet.org, April 19, 2006

Health impacts
In Britain for example, a Centre for Food Policy and Thames Valley University report, titled Why health is the key for the future of farming and food (January 2002) says that far more people are affected by diet-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and nutritional deficiencies than diarrhoeal diseases (salmonella, campylobacter, etc) — some 35% compared to 0.2%.
As the report says bluntly, “food safety may scandalise the country and attract political attention, but it is the routine premature death by degenerative disease that extracts the greater ill-health toll” (p.15).
This phenomena is seen in many rich nations, though Britain comes out worse than most on many such indicators (p.16).
The report further highlights that the costs of coronary heart disease alone are around £10 billion a year (approximately 14 billion in U.S. dollars). These costs are made up of
£1.6 billion in direct costs (primarily to the tax payer through the costs of treatment by the British National Health Service) and
£8.4 billion in indirect costs (to industry and to society as a whole, though loss of productivity due to death and disability). (p. 38)
In addition, this does not include costs from other diseases, or effects of wider industrial agricultural policies that have given rise to BSE, Foot and Mouth disease, or the cost to the environment, etc.
Other issues and problems they point out include:
Encouraging/advertising unhealthy diets and foods (especially to children);
Generally putting low priority on health;
Industry-dominated food policy at the expense of local grocery stores;
Deteriorating health of children in poverty;
and so on.
Experts believe that obesity is responsible for more ill health even than smoking, the BBC has noted, which ties in with the World Watch quotation above about health costs for obesity in the U.S. exceeding those associated with smoking.

Various causes of obesity
Taking a more global view, the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) looks at various attempts to tackle obesity and notes that obesity is caused by a complex and multitude of inter-related causes, “fuelled by economic and psychosocial factors as well as increased availability of energy dense food and reduced physical activity.”
The authors broke down the causes into the following areas:
Food systems causes of obesity
The main problem has been the increased availability of high energy food, because of:
Liberalized international food markets
Food subsidies that “have arguably distorted the food supply in favour of less healthy foodstuffs”
“Transnational food companies [that] have flooded the global market with cheap to produce, energy dense, nutrient empty foods”
“Supermarkets and food service chains [that are] encouraging bulk purchases, convenience foods, and supersized portions”
Healthy eating often being more expensive than less healthy options, (despite global food prices having dropped on average).
Marketing, especially “food advertising through television [which] aims to persuade individuals—particularly children—that they desire foods high in saturated fats, sugars, and salt.”
The local environment and obesity
How people live, what factors make them active or sedentary are also a factor. For exapmle,
“Research, mainly in high income countries, indicates that local urban planning and design can influence weight in several ways.”
For example, levels of physical activity are affected by
Connected streets and the ability to walk from place to place
Provision of and access to local public facilities and spaces for recreation and play
The increasing reliance on cars leads to physical inactivity, and while a long-time problem in rich countries, is a growing problem in developing countries.
Social conditions and obesity
Examples of issues the BMJ noted here include
“Working and living conditions, such as having enough money for a healthy standard of living, underpin compliance with national health guidelines”
“Increasingly less job control, security, flexibility of working hours, and access to paid family leave … undermining the material and psychosocial resources necessary for empowering individuals and communities to make healthy living choices.”
Inequality, which can lead to different groups being disadvantaged and having less access to needed resources and healthier foods

Addressing Obesity Globally, Nationally, Locally, Individually
Given the complex, inter-related causes of obesity, addressing it also requires a mult-pronged approach:
Dealing with inequalities in obesity requires a different policy agenda from the one currently being promoted. Action is needed that is grounded in principles of health equity.
…
Missing in most obesity prevention strategies is the recognition that obesity—and its unequal distribution—is the consequence of a complex system that is shaped by how society organises its affairs. Action must tackle the inequities in this system, aiming to ensure an equitable distribution of ample and nutritious global and national food supplies; built environments that lend themselves to easy access and uptake of healthier options by all; and living and working conditions that produce more equal material and psychosocial resources between and within social groups. This will require action at global, national, and local levels.
— Sharon Friel, Mickey Chopra, David Satcher, Unequal weight: equity oriented policy responses to the global obesity epidemic, British Medical Journal, Volume 335, December 15, 2007, pp. 1241-1243
The BMJ criticizes traditional methods to address obesity as typically trying to change individual’s behavior. While important, on its own, they feel it is not sufficient; there is “limited evidence for sustainability [of this direct approach] and transferability to other settings,” for example.
Furthermore, “the recent UK Foresight Report makes clear the complexity of drivers that produce obesity; it highlights that most are societal issues and therefore require societal responses.”
The BMJ therefore describes some examples of initiatives at these various levels:
Addressing obesity at the global level
This involves international institutions, agreements, trade and other policies. For example,
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a key institution at this level. It’s global strategy in this area focuses on developing food and agricultural policies that are aligned to promoting public health and multisectorial policies that promote physical activity, as well as generally being an information provider.
A joint program of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, the experience of the Codex Alimentarius Commission highlights the challenges at international level. The Commission was set up to help governments protect the health of consumers and ensure fair trade practices in the food trade.
But challenges and obstacles persist. For example, “industry representatives hugely outnumber representatives from public interest groups, resulting in an imbalance between the goals of trade and consumer protection.”
In addition,
“Ensuring that global food marketing does not target vulnerable societies” the BMJ feels there needs to be “binding international codes of practice related to production and marketing of healthy food, supported at the national level by policy and regulation.”
This is preferred over voluntary guidelines, typical of the industry’s response to threats of regulation, because such responses “may result in differential uptake by better-off individuals or institutions and provides little opportunity for public and private sector accountability.” (Emphasis added)
For example, “regulating television advertising of foods high in fat or sugar to children is a highly cost effective upstream intervention.” (This is also discussed in more detail on this site’s section on Children as Consumers.)
Addressing obesity at the national level
National policies typically aimed at healthier food production include targeted and appropriate domestic subsidies. For example,
“Norway successfully reversed the population shift towards high fat, energy dense diets by using a combination of food subsidies, price manipulation, retail regulations, clear nutrition labelling, and public education focused on individuals.”
Mauritius relatively successful program includes price policy, agricultural policy, and widespread educational activity in various settings.
Ireland is an example of the also-needed multi-agency approach with their Healthy Food for All initiative seeking to promote access, availability, and affordability of healthy food for low income groups.
Addressing obesity at the local level
Examples of local level action the BMJ mentioned include
The success of the Brazilian population-wide Agita Sao Paulo physical activity program which “successfully reduced the level of physical inactivity in the general population by using a multi-strategy approach of building pathways; widening paths and removing obstacles; building walking or running tracks with shadow and hydration points; maintaining green areas and leisure spaces; having bicycle storage close to public transport stations and at entrances of schools and workplaces; and implementing private and public incentive policies for mass active transport.”
The London Development Agency plans to establish a sustainable food distribution hub to supply independent food retailers and restaurants.
However, a key challenge they note is the “lack of systematic evaluation of initiatives, particularly with an equity focus, [which] makes it difficult to generalise policy solutions in this field.”
So while there are many measures possible at many levels, a cultural shift in attitude is needed.
Another BMJ article notes in a prognosis in obesity that we need to move a little more and eat a little less:
New economic analyses help dispel the myth of people getting fatter but eating less. The first 20 years of our adult obesity epidemic, from the 1970s to 1990s, was explained mainly by declining physical activity: Americans believe they have less time to do things but in reality are spending more time watching television and being inactive. Subsequently, the obesity epidemic appears to have been fuelled by largely increased food consumption. A paradoxical increase and deregulation of appetite during inactivity has been matched by an increasing supply of food at lower real cost. Consumption of “supersize” food portions will accelerate this process, reflecting a failure of the free market that demands government intervention.
— Professor M E J Lean, Prognosis in obesity; we all need to move a little more, eat a little less, British Medical Journal, Volume 330, 11 June 2005, p.1339
Award-winning journalist Michael Pollan argues in an interview that not only is what you eat important, but how you eat, as well:
At the end of the industrial food chain, you need an industrial eater. What you eat, and how you eat are equally important issues. There is a lot of talk and interesting comparisons drawn between us and the French on the subject of food. We’re kind of mystified that they can eat such seemingly toxic substances—triple crème cheeses and foie gras, and they're actually healthier than we are.
They live a little bit longer, they have less obesity, less heart disease. What gives? Well, according to the people who study this: It’s not what they eat, it’s how they eat it. They eat smaller portions; they do not snack as a rule; they do not eat alone. When you eat alone, you tend to eat more. When you’re eating with someone there’s a conversation going on, there’s a sense of propriety; you don’t pig out when you’re eating at a table with other people.
So the French show you can eat just about whatever you want, as long as you do it in moderation. That strikes me as a liberating message. But it’s not the way we do things here. We have a food system here that is all about quantity, rather than quality. So how you eat is very, very important, and to solve the obesity and the diabetes issue in this country, we’re going to have change the way we eat, as well as what we eat.
— Blair Golson, America’s Eating Disorder, Alternet.org, April 19, 2006
Perhaps a more bizarre suggestion in UK has been by a doctor (or scientist — I heard this on the radio and did not have time to get the exact details) who suggested that McDonald’s should narrow their doors so that fat people cannot get in. Maybe this hints at how extreme the problem might be for a medical doctor to be so extreme in a possible solution, as there are problems with this type of suggestion. For example,
This sounds like an extremist and reactionary measure to deal with the issue, and raises concerns about rights of individuals to make their own choices.
Furthermore, it could lead to a form of prejudice and hostility towards certain types of people.
More effective could be to address the deeper issues discussed further above and below.
For example, the fast food industry is not effectively charged for their contribution to environmental destruction around the world, or even their indirect contribution to world hunger by making poor people grow food for export rather than to feed themselves. (See this site’s section on beef, and hunger for more on these aspects.)
These examples just touch the surface, but these all add up to hidden costs for society but savings for the fast food companies.
Pricing beef, for example, based on true cost of production would make these inefficient and unhealthy foods more expensive, and a deterrent for the majority of people, who might turn to healthier options (though this itself isn’t an automatic given).
But the underlying concern of the doctor is still important. At the end of April 2004, the British government urged the public to exercise five times a week. Levels of physical activity among the general population have fallen significantly over the past 25 years the government had also noted. Compelling scientific evidence shows that more active people are less likely to become obese and develop heart disease.
Another major determinant in people’s preferences and habits, especially in a consumer society, is marketing.

Healthy versus Unhealthy Food Marketing; Who Usually Wins?
Of course, obesity is not an easy challenge to overcome, as today’s commercial markets include a very wide variety of foods that are unhealthy, but attractively marketed to kids, as also mentioned in the children section. And many resources are deployed to support that industry. This is another example of hidden “waste”.
Soaring diabetes rates are inextricably tied to the global obesity epidemic, as Inter Press Service (IPS) notes. Yet, the political will to be able to change certain cultural habits and to take on powerful industries promoting such habits that lead to these problems, is where the challenge lies.
In theory were it not for these political and cultural challenges, the cost of addressing the problem could be quite low (regular exercise, sensible eating habits, for example). But, “There is not enough resolve to take on these monster industries and to force changes that will make our environment promote healthy rather than unhealthy choices when it comes to food and physical activity” says Dr. David Schlundt, a psychology professor at the Diabetes Center of Vanderbilt University in Tennessee state, in that IPS article.
“The WHO [World Health Organisation] is basically powerless to do anything about the problem other than draw attention to it and perhaps develop some recommendations that will be very difficult for governments to implement” Schlundt also notes.
As a small example, in November 2003, another UK government member of Parliament had suggested a bill to ban TV ads promoting food and drink high in fat, salt and sugar aimed at young children. This received a lot of support as well, as groups and other members of Parliament felt that self-governing by the industry was not working. However, the bill didn’t get anywhere due to lack of time although it is repeatedly being called for.
The BBC noted in March 2004 that “over 100 of the UK’s leading health and consumer groups have urged the government to ban junk food ads, saying they are fuelling rising rates of obesity.” Some of these groups are leading medical and related organizations in Britain. However, as the BBC also noted, a UK government minister said she was sceptical about the merits of banning junk food ads and, in concert with what the food and drink industry said, “sound science” was needed to ensure that this was indeed a major cause of health problems. Encouraging healthier living and eating would be better it was noted. Ironically, it is the food and drink industry that has the advertising muscle and clout, and, as a campaigner from one of the groups commented, “Huge profits are at stake, so we don’t believe that they will voluntarily stop promoting junk foods to kids. For the sake of children’s health, statutory controls are urgently required.”
And possibly as an example of a more bizarre sounding use of resources to get children to become more active, in Britain, a chocolate company was promoting sports equipment in return for vouchers and coupons from chocolate bars. The more you ate, the more sports equipment you would get, presumably to burn off the excesses eaten! The UK’s Food Commission called this “absurd and contradictory” and pointed out that if children consumed all the promotional chocolate bars they would eat nearly two million kilos of fat and more than 36 billion calories.
The BBC, reporting on this (April 29, 2003), commented the following, amongst other things:
One set of posts and nets for volleyball would require tokens from 5,440 bars of chocolate
This would require spending £2,000 (about $3,500) on chocolate and wolfing their way through 1.25 million calories, some 2 million kilos of fat.
A basketball would be 170 bars of chocolate, which, if it were to be burned off, a 10-year-old child would need to play for 90 hours.
While the confectionary companies suggested that children were going to eat these anyway, others raised concerns that this is promoting more unhealthy eating. The chairman of the UK government’s obesity task force, Professor Phil James, said: “This is a classic example of how the food and soft drink industry are failing to take on board that they are major contributors to obesity problems throughout the world. They always try to divert attention to physical activity.”
What is more, as most British media outlets also highlighted, then Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, endorsed it.
But this is not the only example. For years, other companies have linked their foods to such schemes for educational or sports equipment for schools. What they get for selling this is branding and future consumers.
This has also been an example of controversial school commercialization which was unanimously condemned at a large teachers union conference in England around the same time.
Many groups are raising urgent concerns because a conservative estimate from experts suggests that over 40% of the UK population could become obese within a generation. The food and drink industry are on the defensive because of the potential loss in sales. As a result, they tend to suggest blaming the individual; it is the individual’s choice at the end of the day. However, while true, advertising is so much part of culture that it would be overly simplistic to say ads do not have an effect and that it is only through exercise and personal discipline that these issues can be overcome.
Side Note»
Oversimplifying a bit,
Were it not for advertising, how would companies including those in the food and drink industry advertise their products? (See for example, the sugar and beef sections later on this site on how luxury products were turned into almost unhealthy “necessities”.)
Furthermore, how would the unhealthy food and drinks become so popular when parents — the other major influence — would typically discourage excessive unhealthy eating and drinking?
But, saying that, with parents themselves having grown up with these same advertising influences, they can indirectly or directly encourage more unhealthy eating for their children.
With the health services typically under strain, the resources to counter-advertise effectively, is limited.
In that context, then, while an important aspect, blaming the individual and parents alone does not address all the issues and influences.
This site’s section on Children as Consumers also notes that towards the end of 2007, additional efforts started in the UK to understand the effect of advertising on children. It also has more details on efforts to address issues related to obesity and the challenge parents (often the ones who are blamed) when going up against marketers.
This is another example of how this can have all sorts of knock-on effects to society and to resource requirements to deal with these issues. And that results in further expenditure and use of resources which, from this perspective, can be seen as costly and wasteful.

USING ANIMALS IN RESEARCH

Using animals in any research might sound viscious to anyone but the problem is if we are not doing this to animals how can we know that something is good or bad to us??

Don't you think that it is more rude if we do the research to humans?? Therefore we have to do the research to animals instead.

For example if we want to test for the effectiveness of certain medicine for certain diseases, we have got to test it to animals first before we sell it or prescribe to the patients. This is because if we give the medicine to humans directly, we might not know that the medicine might give a bad effect to humans so it is better to test it first with the animals.

Is using animal in research is bad?

Technically, I would not called it a bad thing to use animal in doing research for the benefit of society. I as the voice for every walking of life that I would rather try a new product that had already been tested and checked for the public to try it with 'doubtless wary' rather than to be concern whether it'll bring harm or good to them. In conclusion, yes, its alright to use animal for experimenting or doing research for the best interest of the stateholders. More importantly do not concern yourself (those against the usage of animals for research) the treatment of the animals because there are laws that are protecting the animals and they alone can state whether this animals is approprite for research or not.

P.S "Life in general is full of unexpected occurance so find your way how to adopt in that situation"

opinion on using animal as experiments

"I do support necessary scientific experiments that will benefit humans or animals"The issue of using animals for experimentation raises many questions. There are also levels at which people agree or disagree with animal experimentation. Most people, my self included, do not condone totally unnecessary scientific experiments that do not significantly benefit humans or animals. However, I do support necessary scientific experiments that will benefit humans or animals.

Imagine, without using these animals for experiments, how are we suppose to know these drugs or specimen is working? If we do not test it before sell it to people, we might kill thousand of people as we dont know its effects.

People come up with ideas of replacing theses animals with alternatives such as computer models and cell stuctures. These are excellent avenues for reducing number of animals used. These methods are used to screen and determine toxic potential of a substance in the early stage of the investigation.The final test however, has to be done in a whole, living system.Even the most sophisticated technology cannot mimic the interactions among cell, tissiues and organ that occurs in animals and plants.

In addition, replacing animals with the adjunct method is very expensive.

Animals used in research.

The ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to much debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century. There remain strong disagreements about which animal testing procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply, and to which species of animals. The dominant ethical position, world-wide, is that achievement of scientific and medical goals using animal testing is desirable, provided that animal suffering and use is minimized. The British government has additionally required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge.

A wide range of minority viewpoints exist as well. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs, desires and self-consciousness. Such beings are seen as having inherent value and thus possessing rights. Regan still sees clear ethical differences between killing animals and killing humans, and argues that to save human lives it is permissible to kill animals. However, some such as Bernard Rollin have taken his position further and argue that any benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an individual animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Another prominent position is articulated by Peter Singer, who sees no convincing reason to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations. Although these arguments have not been widely accepted, in response to these concerns some governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have outlawed invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the Great Apes.

Sure enough this type of research may seem inhumane to most people. This is done to ensure that the product produced are safe to use by us. Just imagine that the researcher will need to first test on a HUMAN, which i believe no one would ever want to be a volunteer. So i still think that testing on animals are necessary, as it is the only solution left for us. Unless, someone would suggest that human should be tested on instead of animals.

Thank you for smoking.

According to the film's director, this film is neither pro- nor anti-smoking. In fact, the act of smoking is not shown at all in the movie (except only once in the deleted scenes portion of the movie: after Naylor has been assaulted by anti-smoking activists, recovers, and is told he can never smoke again. He tries one, and passes out.) The closest the movie ever comes to depicting a character smoking is when Nick reaches into his shirt pocket for a cigarette. The pack, however, is empty. The film is more inclined to attack political correctness, despite some scenes showing pro-smoking messages. Overall it slightly parodies both struggles in promoting and preventing smoking, with the Tobacco companies resorting to giving obvious lies to people and the anti-smoking movements going too far (such as the senator editing movies that have cigarettes in them). During the film, it is repeated that "there is no scientific proof against cigarettes". On The Charlie Rose Show, and in his director's commentary on the DVD, Reitman described it as a film with a libertarian message. This message is crystallized in the movie when the Senator asks Nick whether he would let Joey smoke when he reaches the age of consent, to which Nick replies "if he really wants a cigarette, I'll buy him his first pack." When asked by a Senator if he believes cigarettes can lead to lung cancer and other conditions, Nick responds, to every one's surprise, that he does. He goes on to state that he doesn't think there is a single person in the room that doesn't believe this, demonstrating that the point is that it is the individuals choice no matter what others believe he should do.

I think this movie shows that smoking is a matter of choice, it's either you want to or you don't want to. No one can or able to make that decision for you, as you are the one that are responsible for every act you choose. Therefore, there is no absolute right or wrong when an individual picks up smoking. But if that individual smokes in places which clearly states that smoking are prohibited, then it is best that this individual are given fair punishment i.e fined $100 or so. This way they would and should learn to obey regulations and to not let the innocent citizen to suffer or became a passive smoker for being presence when someone is smoking.

movie reviews- thank you for smoking

'thank you for smoking' from the title people might think its a bad movie where it encourage us to smoke. But after watching the movies its not a bad movie at all. Nick Naylor is a lobbyist, a vice president and a spokesmen for a big tobacco company. He's job is a tough job as he has to encourage people to keep on buying tobacco in a time when the health hazards of the activity have become to plain to ignore.Nick, however, revels in his job, using argument and twisted logic to place, as often as not, his clients in the positions of either altruistic do-gooders or victims. Nick's son Joey needs to understand and respect his dad's philosophy, and Nick works hard to respond to that need without compromising his lack of values. When a beautiful news reporter betrays Nick's sexually-achieved trust, his world seems in danger of collapsing. But there's always one more coffin nail in Nick's pack

MOVIE REVIEW-Thank You For Smoking!

Thank you for smoking?

Everyone knows that smoking is a bad thing and it gives a bad impression. The movie was about how the lobbyist defended smoking in which he supported smoking and he thought that smoking is not wrong.

There was a feud between the company he is working with and the other company that was against smoking. He worked for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. There were certain authorities who tried to make people aware about the disadvantages of smoking by trying to put a warning image on each of the cigarette's packet. But this was argued by the tobacco supporters.

He also gave a briefing about smoking to the classmates of his son.By saying "no matter what you do, it is always right" to the children give an impression that smoking will never be wrong. This would make the children think that smoking is good and this statement will ruin their future simultaneously. Thus his son's teacher stopped him from saying any further.

He was once kipnapped by the anti-tobacco people and his body was plastered with nicotine patches in which this maybe fatal and lethal to him. The non-supporters of tobacco were trying to teach him on how wrong it was to support smoking and to allow other people to smoke may affect their lives and shorten their lives longetivity.

But fortunate for him that he didn't die although the nicotine patches were already to much to make him die. But at least he did learn from the lesson that any of the ingredients of the cigarette may lead to death!

What I felt about the movie-'Thank you for the Smoking'

"Thank you for the smoking"-It's basically an interesting movie since it caught my intention with full force because of the title itself. In my opinion, it's kind of hilarious because where ever I go I would see adverts about the dangers of smoking and how the elders discourage the younger generation that smoking is danger to you if you were to fall to the temptation that the smoke seem wanted you to cross the dark path of life.

So, when I first watched this movie and well it sort of make me want to laugh more instead of to inteprate what's the message of this movie trying to deliver it's real message to me. For once, I would categorise the movie under the genre' suspense and comedy that what's it all about since I can't to be stopped at that time.

To cut long story short, this movie is about Nick Taylor who's lobbilist whose job was to talk. Yes, talk as in counter everyone's points of view whether they state it wrong or right. It doesn't matter to Mr Taylor because he has his own sense of ideal that whatever he say is always true. Thus, Nick got a lot of enemies in a 360 degree notion and watch as he try to deal all this obstacles with his incredible 'smarty' mouth.

P.S "Don't try so hard to solve problems, just be the problem and eventually the solution would appear of you"

HARMFULL EFFECTS OF TOBACCO SMOKING

Tobacco smoking is the inhalation of smoke from burned dried or cured leaves of the tobacco plant. People smoke for pleasure, for ritualistic or social purposes, or for self-medication.Tobacco smokes contain 1000 of poisons and harmful substances. Everyone knows that! but why people still smoke? perhaps the desire to try something new, or influence from friends? or perhaps the mass media to be blame?
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TOBACCO SMOKING
Tobacco contains harmfull substances, Tar, Nicotine and carcinogens.
tobacco smokes affects Our body, heart, lungs, our hormones , cancer etc

Effects on your body

In your body nicotine can increase salivation (makes you drool), increase stomach acid and motility (gives you heartburn and diarrhea), and increase heart rate and blood pressure.
In your brain nicotine can act as a psychomotor stimulant, increase alertness, increase concentration, increase attention, and can make you less hungry. Maybe this sounds great, but wait there's more!!!
Repeated use produces tolerance and dependence (you're addicted and can't live without the stuff) .
And, there's even a withdrawal syndrome (so now it's even gonna make you sick when you try to quit). So when you're not smoking you might become irritable, have less concentration, gain some weight, and maybe some tremors. But the worst will probably be those intense cravings for another puff to get your nicotine.

LUNG DISEASES
Smoking is involved in 85% of all lung cancer deaths!(which is incurable). It cause emphysema, chrinic mucus secretion and chronic air flow blocks.An individual with chronic bronchitis (which is caused by smoking) is more likely to get a bacterial infection if he/she is a smoker.

HEART DISEASES
Cigarette smoking accounts for 30% of all heart disease deaths.
The carbon monoxide in the cigarette smoke increases the amount of cholesterol clogging the arteries. 3.Smoking causes a stiffness in the walls of the arteries which is harmful to the artery and increases the risk for the artery to rupture.
4.The nicotine in cigarettes can raise your blood pressure, heart rate, and the oxygen demand for muscles, especially the heart (the heart is a muscle).
5.A coronary spasm may occur during smoking, which may lead to chest pain, and a heart attack
blood clot.

HORMONES
*Women smokers enter menopause an average of 5 years earlier than nonsmokers.
*Smoking and nicotine can alter a number of hormones involved in the reproduction function.
*Women who smoke are at an increased risk of osteoporosis.
*In male smokers, the mobility of their sperm is reduced.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF SMOKING

Is smoking harmful to your health?? The answer is YES! It is really harmful to your health. Do you know why??This is because it contains about 4 000 poisonous chemicals in just one cigarette. Therefore it would cause you more that just one negative effect.

The negative effects that are caused by smoking are:

• BLOCKAGE:The fats are deposited in your artery and thus causes a blockage that makes oxygen hard to diffuse
• WASTE OF MONEY:Nicotine may cause an addiction that you need to smoke regularly that this may cause a waste of money
• DEATH: if carbon monoxide increases by 1% in your blood, this may be lethal
• CANCER: tar which contains in the cigarette can interrupt the reproduction of cells. Thus this may cause cancer
• PASSIVE SMOKER: when the other person is inhaling the smoke from the cigarette, this will also cause cancer to this person who is not smoking
• LOSS OF WEIGHT: Smoking also cause sudden lose of weight
• LUMBAR DISK PROBLEMS
• STROKE
• HEART ATTACK
• REDUCED FERTILITY
• ASTHMA
• LEUKAEMIA
• OSTEOPOROSIS
• PNEUMONIA
• PREMATURE AGING OF THE SKIN
• GUM DISEASE
• STRESS: This may cause high blood pressure
• LOSS OF SMELL AND TASTE
• STOMACH CANCER
• LIVER CANCER

Negative impacts on smoking

Smoking is kind of like an act of every individuals in the walking of life has this tendency to imitate the action of others without regards whether they actions brings harm to them or not. In certain scenario, the base example is smoking. As in the above title that I would stress out about the dangers or the negative impacts if a person were to do an activity of smoking.

20's negatives impacts on smoking.

1. Smoking gives a higher risk of starting a fire
2. Cigarette components stain the teeth
3. Gum disease and bad breath
4. Coughs and shortness of breath
5. Colds and flu
6. Mouth ulcers
7. High blood pressure
8. Asthma attacks
9. Stroke
10. Reduced vision
11. Mouth and throat cancer
12. Heart disease
13. Lung cancer
14. Stomach ulcers
15. Infertility
16. Bladder cancer
17. smoking makes you look older
18. Passive smoker becomes a victim
19. Nausea
20. waste a lot of money

p.s don't shorten your life just for the sake of bad influence

Euthanasia-Merciful killing is an art of well being

Euthanasia is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering. That's basically what it meant. I think that's kind of numb-consious sort of feeling to think about euthanasia. I wonder whether to support it or against it. Furthermore, I'm asking myself if I allowed the term euthanasia into the equation of my life. I'm seriousely neutral on this.

People seem to support euthanasia because they believe that this method of mercy killing will end thesuffering of others : namely the patience who undergo so much pain not only the patience also their close relatives. I would only be neutral regarding euthanasia because I have 2 feelings of what I think about euthanasia. There are it's helps to end one suffering but if I were to do that to my own family then as if i was killing my own flesh and blood. Therefore, I'm 50-50 regarding euthanasia

euthanasia

Euthanasia ia the art of kiling. Divided into 2 parts 1.Active and pasive euthanasia. Euthanasia is a sensitive issues.It is illegal in most countries.
Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia, also known as physician aid in dying, or physician assisted suicide, is a merciful method of death. At the other end are opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this method as a form of murder.
Well, im in between i dont 100% support euthanasia nor fully against it.There are conditions when euthanasia has to be practised.
REASONS WHY WE SUPPORT EUTHANASIA:

• To ends people suffering.
• When the person is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy.
• If the patience is as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome.
• If the person has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die.

EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia is the practice of medically-assisted death. The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu” and “thanatos” which combined means “well death” or "dying well". Euthanasia may be good and might be bad in some ways. There are situations where euthanasia must be done to someone although he likes it or not.

In the first situation where the patient is in comma for a long time and the chance for him to be consciously and mentally alive is very thin and there is no hope, thus euthanasia is necessary in this case. This is because rather than to let him to just lay in bed and it might be a 'torture' to him, it is better to just let him die as he might be paralysed. Apart from that he has no feelings and his mind is empty i.e he can't even think of anything. His brain doesn't work well as he doesn't get proper food for his brain and body. This means that the doctor needs to inject glucose into his body in order to keep the brain to still 'working'. This is because the brain is the controller to our whole body and it needs to work properly in order to control our body.

The second thing is that apart from it is a torture to the patient, it is also a torture to his family. His family might feel sad all the day with the hope that he will be consciously alive one day although they know that the chance for him to be mentally alive is very thin. The family comes to see him everyday but it is always frustating that he still doesn't even make a move although he is breathing. This is a torture to his family and their sorrows might affect their daily lives. This means that it is better to just let him die as the longer the family.. 'keeeps' him, his family live will become more worse.

Besides that, euthanisia might save the cost of treatment of the patient who has thinner live opportunity. This is because for example if there is another patient who has more opportunity to be alive, then it is better to treat that person in order to get him well and thus he has the chance to live again and as if it works then this person may have the opportunity the valuable things in his lives. This sounds viscious that the one who has thinner chance of live need to be 'killed' for another person. But this is live; why should waste the time for the person that doesn't has the chance to live?. we should have given the opportunity to another person who has more chance to stay alive mentally and physically.

However, euthanasia should not be done in some circumstances. For example is that although he doesn't has more chance to be mentally and physically alive, we should wait for it until he has made a physical move that he can still live. This is because there is a case where the person who is in comma for a long time is becoming conscious mentally and physically. This shows that euthanasia is not necessary in this case.

Besides that some family cannot accept if the person they love so much is dead and it is so-called rude to 'kill' the person so in this case euthanasia is not necessary. This is because it might make the family to become 'insane'.

In my opinion, I agree if euthanasia is to be done in appropriate situations.