Majorities of Americans say that people have a right to end their own life if they have an incurable disease or suffer great pain, but not because they have become a burden
WELCOME
Public Agenda helps communities and the nation
solve tough problems through:
Research that illuminates people's views & values;
Engagement that gets people talking, learning from each other and working together on solutions; and
Communications that spreads the word and builds momentum for change.
By doing so, we seek to contribute to a democracy in which problem-solving triumphs over gridlock and inertia, and where public policy reflects the deliberations and values of the citizenry.
Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. You can find out more about us in our What We Do and Frequently Asked Questions pages.
The High Stakes of Stakeholder Engagement: A Plea for Careful Planning from Public Agenda
This post was written for the 20 community colleges participating in Completion by Design, a five-year Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiative that aims to significantly increase completion rates for low-income students under 26. As a “National Assistance partner” for Completion by Design, Public Agenda provides direct assistance to the colleges to help them build capacity for solutions-oriented dialogue among faculty, staff and administration. Here, Public Agenda's Alison Kadlec discusses best practices for authentic internal stakeholder engagement. While the post is geared toward Completion by Design planning teams, the principles are useful for any authentic engagement process.
***You Can't Do It Alone: A New Guide to Creating Sustainable Change in Education Reform
Far too often, throughout our work in the education field, we've seen even the most earnest and promising ideas from experts and reformers for improving schools and ramping up student learning met with confusion, anxiety or even anger from teachers, parents, students or community members.
Tags: 
2011 Public AgendaThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Reading the percentage of people who think we have our own right to die understand certain circumstances has assured me that I do think the same way of the public in different scenarios in which was given. If something accidental or purposely happen to me and I became brain dead, I would not want to go on living. What good am I to this world if I am incapable of taking care of myself. I have seen brain dead patients that are some what living only because they are able to breve but look soulless and have no function over their body. These patients are watched twenty four seven and are pampered as if they were babies. No disrespect to the caretakers that watch over these people, but how are these lives benefiting the world today? is it only just to make the ones who are taking care of the impaired feel good about themselves or is it societies way of continuing and saving the life cycle? They are unable to speak, but if they were, they would have implied to end their life because living a soulless impaired body is not the way to live. I understand that Doctors have signed a contract before they started their practice agreeing to the terms of keeping a patient alive if any means necessary. I am for this quota but not to the extent of people living in pain and suffering. This goes back the the topic of stem cell research when I stated in my discussion, that if a person is meant to die then that is their right.
even a sick dog is not allowed to suffer...they are allowed to die wi\th dignity and pain free...providing the pro
per requirements have been met...so how in gods name can they leave a human to lay and suffer?
Who draws the line? What if someone is so depressed they think death is easier then living life? Should that person be allowed to end their life if they believe the rest of their life is not worth living?
Post new comment