Euthanasia

[Marabou]

Bonjour, je suis de retour et j'aimerais savoir si vous pourriez corriger mon texte en m'expliquant mes erreurs , voici mon travail :

1/ This news article is extracted from the newspaper "Newsweek" published on February 22, 1993. He talks about euthanasia and the right to die among the very ill and suffering greatly. First the reporter says that active euthanasia is legalized for the first time in Holland and it is a hypocrisy that is tolerated by the government in European countries. Then he explains how this new way of dying patients sick with the necessity of the incurable disease, a severe impact on the patient's life and also about the objectification of that pain by two physicians. Finally, the author puts forward the question of whether an individual patient to the possibility of an objective viewpoint to decide to die.

2/ This now, trying to explain step by step the arguments of this text and then try to show another point of view. First, physicians by Dutch law are those more responsibilities but the doctor, health professional didn't he take responsibility both moral and legal of his acts ? Moreover, in this country is the issue of legalization of active euthanasia in a moral point of view can be likened to a murder despite its laudable goal, one might think that death is a the only things that should not be medicalized and the most natural thing there is. Then he highlighted the problem of government that tolerates in most European countries active euthanasia despite the illegality of it. But a state he did not need to apply the law ? Finally, we can assume that the pain and suffering, the patient can't be objective in its determination to die. But doctors who don't have it are they more objective? The human body isn't the absolute property of the person? We may think. This shows that the issue of euthanasia raises questions and creates discussion both legal and moral, ethical and philosophical.

3/ It is very difficult to have a definitive opinion on this issue without having discussed the issue and read several points of view to enrich its reflection ! But I will try to explain my analysis based on previous findings. Firstly I think the body is the absolute property of the individual, it's what we own and which one has control, and indeed legally an individual has the right not to care! In this difficult decision to allow the death of an individual, science and medicine are not the only disciplines to accept this decision. Morality, emotion and ethics must be taken into account. On the passive side of government; I think the laws should not be "fixed" but be more flexible and adapt to the individuality of problems but I also think that the law does not solve everything and that morality, philosophy such as ethics have a role as well .Finally I found that passive euthanasia, when you stop feeding a patient is morally reprehensible and is a cruel practice. However, it is necessary to objectify the patient's suffering and enrich its reflection to distinguish the murder of medical euthanasia.

En vous remerçiant d'avance.

Marabou !

[Jean B]

Bonjour,

Comme tu es une " grande fille " responsable, je me borne désormais à baliser les fautes, quelles soient de grammaire, de vocabulaire ou de construction, en rouge. xx??xx signale une omission au moins.

À toi d'en découvrir la nature pour les corriger, ce qui est plus formateur qu'une explication non suivie d'effet.

Bonjour, je suis de retour et j'aimerais savoir si vous pourriez corriger mon texte en m'expliquant mes erreurs , voici mon travail :

1/ This news article is extracted from the newspaper "Newsweek" published on February 22, 1993. He talks about euthanasia and the right to die among the very ill and suffering greatly. First the reporter says that active euthanasia is legalized for the first time in Holland and it is a hypocrisy that is tolerated by the government in European countries. Then he explains how this new way of dying patients sick with the necessity of the incurable disease, a severe impact on the patient's life and also about the objectification of that pain by two physicians. Finally, the author puts forward the question of whether an individual patient xx??xx to the possibility of an objective viewpoint to decide to die.

2/ This now, trying to explain step by step the arguments of this text and then try to show another point of view. First, physicians by Dutch law are those more responsibilities but the doctor, health professional didn't he take responsibility both moral and legal of his acts ? Moreover, in this country is the issue of legalization of active euthanasia in a moral point of view can be likened to a murder despite its laudable goal, one might think that death is a the only things that should not be medicalized and the most natural thing there is. Then he highlighted the problem of government that tolerates in most European countries active euthanasia despite the illegality of it. But a state he did not need to apply the law ? Finally, we can assume that the pain and suffering, the patient can't be objective in its determination to die. But doctors who don't have it are they more objective? The human body isn't the absolute property of the person? We may think. This shows that the issue of euthanasia raises questions and creates discussion both legal and moral, ethical and philosophical.

Là, je dois dire que tu as fait fort. Si je ne craignais pas de moquer le président Chirac, j'ajouterais que c'est carrément " charabiantesque "...!

3/ It is very difficult to have a definitive opinion on this issue without having discussed the issue and read several points of view to enrich its reflection! But I will try to explain my analysis based on previous findings. Firstly I think the body is the absolute property of the individual, it's what we own and which one has control, and indeed legally an individual has the right not to care! In this difficult decision to allow the death of an individual, science and medicine are not the only disciplines to accept this decision. Morality, emotion and ethics must be taken into account. On the passive side of government; I think the laws should not be "fixed" but be more flexible and adapt to the individuality of problems but I also think that the law does not solve everything and that morality, philosophy such as ethics have a role as well. Finally, I found that passive euthanasia, when you stop feeding a patient is morally reprehensible and is a cruel practice. However, it is necessary to objectify the patient's suffering and enrich its reflection to distinguish the murder of medical euthanasia. Ce paragraphe est bien meilleur que les 2 précédents. Tous les espoirs sont donc permis.

En vous remerçciant d'avance.

Marabou !

[Marabou]

Bonjour bonjour, je suis de retour, j'ai bien pris le temps d'esssayer de comprendre mes erreurs, j'espère que le résultat sera concluant ! Voici le résultat:

1/ This news article is extracted from the News magazine "Newsweek" published on February 22, 1993. He talks about euthanasia and the right to die among terminally ill patients who suffer a lot.. First the reporter says that active euthanasia was legalized for the first time in Holland and it is a hypocrisy that is tolerated by governments in European countries. Then he explains this new way of dying patients in these patients must be terminally ill, the disease must have an impact on his life and also on the objectification of pain by two physicians. Finally, the author puts forward the question of whether an individual patient have the possibility of an objective viewpoint to decide to die.

2/ Now try to explain step by step the arguments of this text and then try to show another point of view. First, doctors by Dutch law are no totaly longer accountable of their actions. But the doctor, health professional should not he take responsibility both moral as legal of his acts? Moreover, in this country where the issue of active euthanasia legalizing is debated, in a moral point of view can be likened to a murder, despite its laudable goal, one might think that death is one of the only things that should not be medicalised and is the most natural thing. Then he highlighted the problem of governments whor tolerate in most European countries active euthanasia ( J'ai lu sur le site de la BBC qu'on dit bien « active euthanasia », je ne trouve donc pas l'erreur !) despite the illegality of it (Je ne trouve pas l'erreur ici non plus !) But a state has he not the duty to enforce The Law? Finally, we can assume that with his pain and suffering, patient can not be objective in his determination to die .But doctors healthy are they more objective? The human body is it not the absolute property of the person?We may think. This shows that the issue of euthanasia raises questions and creates discussion both legal and moral, ethical and philosophical.

3/ It is very difficult to have a definitive opinion on this issue without having discussed this question and read several points of view to enrich his reflection! But I will try to explain my analysis based on previous findings. Firstly I think the body is the absolute property of the individual, it's what we own and it's why whe have the control and indeed legally an individual has the right not to care! In this difficult decision to allow the death of an individual, science and medicine are not the only disciplines to accept this decision. Morality, emotion and ethics must be taken into account. On the passive side of government; I think the laws should not be "fixed" but be more flexible and adapt to the individuality of problems but I also think that the law does not solve everything and that morality, philosophy such as ethics have a role as well. Finally, I think that passive euthanasia, when you stop feeding a patient is morally reprehensible and is a cruel practice. However, it is necessary to objectify the patient's suffering and enrich his reflection to distinguish the murder from medical euthanasia.

Merci d'avance de vos conseils sur les erreurs qui demeureraient !

Marabou !

[Jean B]

Bonjour bonjour, je suis de retour, j'ai bien pris le temps d'essayer de comprendre mes erreurs, j'espère que le résultat sera concluant ! Voici le résultat:

1/ This news article is extracted from the weekly News magazine "Newsweek" published on February 22, 1993. He<bis ! talks about euthanasia and the right to die among terminally ill patients who suffer a lot. First the reporter says that active euthanasia was legalized for the first time in Holland and it is a hypocrisy that is tolerated by governments in European countries. Then he explains this new way of dying patients in these patients must be terminally ill,<Cela veut dire ? Je ne comprends pas. the disease must have an impact on his<Avec quel nom cet adjectif possessif est-il accordé ? life and also on the objectification of pain by two physicians. Finally, the author puts forward the question of whether an individual patient have the possibility of an objective viewpoint to decide to die.Ferais-tu exprès de commettre pareille faute grammaticale ? J'espère que non. Sois également attentive à tous les accords.

2/ Now try to explain step by step the arguments of this text and then try to show another point of view. First, doctors by Dutch law are no totaly longer totally accountable of for their actions. But the doctor, xx??xx health professional, should not he take responsibility both moral as legal of his acts?<Que sais-tu de la construction d'une phrase interrogative ? Quel doit en être l'ordre des mots précisément ? Moreover, in this country where the issue of active euthanasia legalizing is debated, in a moral point of view can be likened to a murder, despite its laudable goal, one might think that death is one of the only things that should not be medicalised and is the most natural thing.<Cette "phrase" est un exemple parfait de ce qu'il ne faut pas faire car on y cherche en vain la moindre cohérence de construction. Pour la énième fois, cesse de penser en français et concentre-toi sur l'anglais et ses structures. Commence par construire des phrases simples avant de te risquer dans les complexes que tu ne maîtrises pas encore. Then he highlighted the problem of governments who tolerate active euthanasia in most European countries active euthanasia ( J'ai lu sur le site de la BBC qu'on dit bien « active euthanasia », je ne trouve donc pas l'erreur!)L'erreur, c'est la place du COD. Que t'ai-je déjà dit plusieurs fois à ce sujet ? Vois-tu l'erreur à présent ? despite its the illegality of it (Je ne trouve pas l'erreur ici non plus !)L'emploi de l'adjectif possessif résoud le problème de ce charabia. But a state has he not the duty to enforce The Law?<Et allons donc ! Pour l'amour du ciel et la santé de mes nerfs, revois la construction de la tournure interrogative. Il est anormal que tu commettes encore ce genre de bourde. Finally, we can assume that with his pain and suffering, xx??xx patient cannot be objective in his determination to die.But doctors healthy are they more objective? The human body is it not the absolute property of the person? We may think wonder. This shows that the issue of euthanasia raises questions and creates discussions both legal and moral, ethical and philosophical.

3/ It is very difficult to have a definitive opinion on this issue without having discussed this question and read several points of view to enrich his reflection!<Avec quel nom accordes-tu cet adjectif possessif ? Indice : tu as choisi d'employer une tournure impersonnelle.But I will try to explain my analysis based on previous findings. Firstly I think the body is the absolute property of the individual, it's what we own and it's why whe have the control and indeed legally an individual has the right not to care! In this difficult decision to allow the death of an individual, science and medicine are not the only disciplines to accept this decision. Morality, emotion and ethics must be taken into account. On the passive side of government; I think the laws should not be "fixed" but be more flexible and adapt to the individuality of problems but I also think that the law does not solve everything and that morality, philosophy such as ethics have a role as well. Finally, I think that passive euthanasia, when you stop feeding a patient, is morally reprehensible and is a cruel practice. However, it is necessary to objectify the patient's suffering and enrich his reflection to distinguish the murder from medical euthanasia.

Merci d'avance de vos conseils sur les erreurs qui demeureraient !

Marabou !

[Marabou]

Alors, j'ai repris mon texte avec vos commentaires, mais je peine à le rendre correcte ! Voici le résultat:

1/ This news article is extracted from the weekly News magazine "Newsweek" published on February 22, 1993. It talks about euthanasia and the right to die among terminally ill patients who suffer a lot. First the reporter says that active euthanasia was legalized for the first time in Holland and it is a hypocrisy that is tolerated by governments in European countries. Then he explains this new way of dying patients in these patients must be terminally ill,< Je veux dire qu'il explique cette nouvelle question sur les patients malades en fin de vie ! the disease must have an impact on his<Avec quel nom cet adjectif possessif est-il accordé ? Avec le patient donc c'est bien His, non ? life and also on the objectification of pain by two physicians. Finally, the author puts forward the question of whether an individual patient has the possibility of an objective viewpoint to decide to die.

2/ Now try to explain step by step the arguments of this text and then try to show another point of view. First, doctors by Dutch law are no longer totally accountable for their actions. But the doctor, a health professional, should he not take responsibility both moral as legal of his acts? Moreover, in this country where the issue of active euthanasia legalizing is debated, in a moral point of view can be likened to a murder, despite its laudable goal, one might think that death is one of the only things that should not be medicalised and is the most natural thing.< J'ai besoin de votre aide je ne sais pas comment rendre plus compréhensible ce passage tout en transcrivant mes idées !. Then he highlighted the problem of governments who tolerate active euthanasia in most European countries despite its illegality. But a state hasn't it the duty to enforce The Law? Finally, we can assume that with his pain and suffering, the patient cannot be objective in his determination to die. But are doctors healthy more objective? The human body isn't it the absolute property of the person? We may wonder. This shows that the issue of euthanasia raises questions and creates discussions both legal and moral, ethical and philosophical.

3/ It is very difficult to have a definitive opinion on this issue without having discussed this question and read several points of view to enrich its reflection! But I will try to explain my analysis based on previous findings. Firstly I think the body is the absolute property of the individual, it's what we own and it's why whe have the control and indeed legally an individual has the right not to care! In this difficult decision to allow the death of an individual, science and medicine are not the only disciplines to accept this decision. Morality, emotion and ethics must be taken into account. On the passive side of government; I think the laws should not be "fixed" but be more flexible and adapt to the individuality of problems but I also think that the law does not solve everything and that morality, philosophy such as ethics have a role as well. Finally, I think that passive euthanasia, when you stop feeding a patient, is morally reprehensible and is a cruel practice. However, it is necessary to objectify the patient's suffering and enrich his reflection to distinguish murder from medical euthanasia

Merci d'avance de me dire ce qui "cloche" et de m'aider pour le passage "Charabiantesque" !

Marabou !

[Jean B]

Alors, j'ai repris mon texte avec vos commentaires, mais je peine à le rendre correct !<Le nom "texte" est du genre masculin. Voici le résultat:

1/ This news article is extracted from the weekly News magazine "Newsweek" published on February 22, 1993. It talks about euthanasia and the right to die among terminally ill patients who suffer a lot. First the reporter says that active euthanasia was legalized for the first time in Holland and it is a hypocrisy that is tolerated by governments in European countries. Then he explains this new way of dying for patients who must be terminally ill.<N'est-ce pas plus clair ainsi ? The disease must have an impact on his their lives and also on the objectification of pain by two physicians.<Tu n'as pas vu que tu avais utilisé le pluriel patients, d'où l'accord incorrect. Il suffisait de mettre l'adjectif possessif pluriel. Finally, the author puts forward the question of whether an individual patient has the possibility of an objective viewpoint to decide to die.

2/ Now try to explain step by step the arguments of this text and then try to show another point of view. First, doctors by Dutch law are no longer totally accountable for their actions. But shouldn't the doctor, a health professional, should he not take responsibility both moral and legal responsibility of his acts?

[Marabou]

Ouf comme vous dites !

Je vous remercie de votre aide et de vos conseils !

Quelques révisions des base de cinjugaison et de Grammaire s'impose !

Marabou !

[Jean B]

Ouf comme vous dites !

Je vous remercie de votre aide et de vos conseils !

[Marabou]

J'aime bien votre petit côté bougon envers mes fautes plus que "basiques" et désespérantes !

Et pour le français, je pense que c'est un grand problème chez nous les élèves, il faudrait qu'on maitraise parfaitement la grammaire et la conjugaison française avant de prétendre maîtriser une langue étrangère ! Mais là, j'ai tapé trop vite et en regardant la Télévision, honte à moi, même étant du sexe féminin, je ne sais pas faire deux choses à la fois !

En vous remerçiant encore de votre aide et de vos conseils.

Marabou !

[yveslouis]

... il faudrait qu'on maitraise parfaitement la grammaire et la conjugaison française ... et se relire avant de poster, également.

En vous remerçiant (N'ai-je pas vu cette erreur signalée plus haut ?) encore de votre aide et de vos conseils.

Marabou !