1.) Child Euthanasia
It seems counter-intuitive that a country would give children the capability to end their lives via euthanasia, yet one has. Recently, a vote within the Belgian Senate decided to allow euthanasia to disabled children. In a 50-17 split, the 17 votes in opposition to the bill were mostly from Christian Democrats. This party is well known for its religious beliefs and pro-life stance on legislation. The vote is coming after a previous decision from a Senate Committee that gave minors the opportunity to receive euthanasia within certain circumstances; as well as victims of dementia. Since it’s legalization in 2002, euthanasia in Belgium was open to all, over age 18. Despite capability to be blocked in the House of Representatives, this bill is soon to become law. Criticizers of the bill, say the already present euthanasia program is being abused and this new law will only allow for more chaos. A viable substitution? Put more research into actual treatments and relief of suffering. As it is, the amount of deaths through euthanasia in Belgium is steadily increasing, as much as 25% in 2012. So the question remains, is euthanasia really a good option for those suffering, or, is it a well-intentioned solution that experiences frequent and rampant abuse? It is up to the people of Belgium, and eventually, the world to decide.
2.) “Humane” Labels
It seems counter-intuitive that something meant to organize, such as a label, could cause confusion; however, in America the sea of labels can lead to stormy weather. There are many different food labels “sugar free” “whole grain” and even “all-natural” ; these all seem like very useful indicators of what kind of product to buy; that is, if they were accurate. None are actually enforced by some sort of regulation or law. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to many food companies, the beauty is in skirting around the truth with labels that make their product seem healthier compared to their competitors. Some companies like Whole Foods and Perdue have taken up the title “humane” which is promoting animal welfare. However a title is all it is, The Humane Society has taken up a class action lawsuit against Perdue, for false advertising of their factory farmed poultry. Industry produced quality assurance programs may seem reassuring in nature, but they actually have very relaxed restraints. However third party audits can serve to check in on animal raising practices, to fill in where industries quality checks fall short. They can assign labels all their own, the Animal Welfare Institute will issue certifications that are at no cost to producers. Even still, they only represent .001% of United States animals used for slaughter. The point of all this? That just because your neighborhood fortune five hundred company says your eggs are “humane” or “cage-free” it may not be all true. Consumers have to put in a little research if they want to eat an omelette in the morning; guilt-free.
Parsing the new 'humane' food labels
3.) The Marshmallow Test
It seems counter-intuitive that a serious psychological study can be based around a fluffy white childhood treat, yet Walter Mischel is well known for his so-called “Marshmallow Test”. Sometime in the 1960s, while a professor at Stanford, Walter Mishchel conducted a test with nursery-school students. They were given a choice of three snacks (a cookie, a pretzel, or a marshmallow) if they waited 15 minutes they got two, but if they took it right away they only got one. Apparently, the choice to wait had actual real life consequences. Those who waited, grew up to have higher grades and were more successful in life. The revolutionary lesson of the study, is, that it is not all about smarts; but control over impulses and patience are important too. However, some have come to contest the full meaning of the study. Celeste Kidd, a graduate student at the University of Rochester has taken up the study in coalition with personal experience to find it’s true result. After, working with families and children in homeless shelters, she has decided, if kids there were given the same test they wouldn’t wait. This isn’t because they cannot control their impulses, but because they did not trust the adult who said they would bring back more treats 15 minutes later. This is because of their background in unstable and unreliable households, not because of poor patience. Kidd created her own version of the study, this time the variable was trust. Two groups were studied in two sessions, both groups would be offered crayons and paper and told if they waited 15 minutes better supplies would be given; most decided to wait. For one group, they were in fact given better supplies and the other group was told apologetically there were none left. After this preliminary test, the marshmallow test was done. Those in the second group (who didn’t receive better supplies like they were promised) were more likely to take the marshmallow after the first time being asked; skipping the 15 minutes and extra treat. Mischel even accounted for this, in a lesser-famous paper, he discussed the effects of a fatherless household and the results of the study. All in all, most account the test to champion overall character traits of determination and patience, while Celeste Kidd believes it is based on a person’s history. It isn’t about self-gratification and waiting, it’s about whether or not they would actually get what was promised.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-10-17/what-does-the-marshmallow-test-actually-test
Rowan Counterintuitive 