By Emmy Allio, Steven Candia and Dawin Dawa ARUA district has declared a week of mourning for the late Attorney General and MP for Koboko county, Francis Ayume.
Flags will fly at half-mast and FM stations are expected to play solemn music. The decision was made by a funeral committee chaired by Arua resident district commissioner Alfred Ogaba.
Meanwhile, Parliament will hold an extra-ordinary session on Thursday to pay tribute to Ayume, who once was the Speaker of the Sixth Parliament.
“The body will arrive at Parliament at 10:00am for viewing and the signing of the condolence book, to 2:00pm when the proceedings of Parliament will commence,†Parliament clerk Aeneas Tandekwire said in a statement.
The body will lie in state in Parliament up to 9:00am on Friday. Thereafter, it will be taken to Namirembe Cathedral for a funeral service before being flown to Arua.
Eight working committees have been formed in Arua to plan the burial at Ayume’s village in Leiko.
President Yoweri Museveni is expected to attend the burial on Sunday.
The body will be delivered by air, information minister Nsaba Buturo said yesterday.
“We secured three aeroplanes to fly the body and dignitaries to Arua,†Buturo said yesterday after a burial meeting.
He said he was in touch with the widow, Elizabeth, who flies in on Thursday from the US with some of their children.
Ayume died on Sunday in a road accident in Kyangonwa, a black spot on the Kampala-Gulu highway. His bodyguard, Michael Geriga, died. They were said not to be wearing seat belts.
Anthony Butele, a former minister, and Ayume’s driver survived and are doing well at Mulago Hospital.
Museveni has ordered a state funeral for Ayume. A Cabinet committee is to coordinate funeral arrangements.
Yesterday, Movement vice-chairman Moses Kigongo sent condolences to the family.
He said Uganda had lost a dedicated son “at the time his services were mostly needed.â€Â
Foundation For Human Rights Initiative also sent condolences to the family.
The Police have not tracked down the killer truck, which knocked Ayume’s car.
Premier Apolo Nsibambi, minister Janat Mukwaya and first deputy premier Gen. Moses Ali turned up at Ayume’s home in Naguru.
Ends
Source: Capital Punishment, 2001, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Death Penalty Information Center.
liverpool boss Houllier in hot soup
Business as usual for under fire Houllier
Gerard Houllier insists he is 'carrying on as normal' despite heightened rumours that his Liverpool reign could be coming to an end.
Houllier: Optimistically planning for next season (ShaunBotterill/GettyImages)
Speculation mounted regarding the Frenchman's future at Anfield after the board of directors failed to publicly congratulate Houllier and the team on finishing fourth and thus securing a place in the Champions League qualifiers.
Chairman David Moores insisted fourth place was the minimum requirement earlier in the season and it was believed that Houllier's position was under review.
However, the Frenchman remained unmoved by the rumours.
He told BBC Sport: 'I am carrying on my work as normal and have been holding meetings with staff preparing for next season.
'I have been discussing contracts and other matters, as well as when the players will report back.
'So I am carrying on my work as normal and with the same dignity as normal.'
The uncertainty comes as Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry continues talks over two separate investment proposals.
The Thailand Prime Minister's bid to buy a 30% share has hit a snag. Thaksin Shinawatra's representatives were to have flown to Liverpool today to finalise the £60million deal, but that trip has been indefinitely postponed until lawyers from both sides sort out the differences.
Thaksin, a billionaire telecoms tycoon who turned to politics, has said he wants to promote Thai football and employ Liverpool coaches to lift the lacklustre national game up to international standards.
According to government sources in Thailand, a special lottery is planned to raise the cash needed for the stake.
Liverpool have also not ruled out a deal with lifelong fan Steve Morgan, the former Redrow Homes owner, who last week had a rival £73million bid rejected.
• Your views on this story? Email newsdesk@soccernet.com
Evolution Vs Science
This section compares and contrasts the three main beliefs about origins: Naturalistic Evolution, Creation Science, and Theistic Evolution
Overview:
The media delight in talking about the warfare between evolution and creation science. However, there are not just two conflicting belief systems concerning the origin of plants, animals, humans, the rest of the world and the rest of the universe. There are literally many hundreds of theories:
Hundreds of religious views:
According David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia" there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. Among these various faith groups, there are probably at least 500 different creation stories to draw from -- all different.
Creation science:
This is a group of about a dozen different belief system which form some of the approximately 500 religious belief systems described above. They are very popular among conservative Christians. They can be divided into two different groups:
New Earth creationists form the majority of creation scientists. They believe that the earth, its current life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor changes within various species have happened since creation; no new species have evolved or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the inerrant truth of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) when interpreted literally.
Old Earth creationists believe that geology, radiometric dating has shown that the world is billions of years old. However, they believe that God created the earth and the rest of the universe.
Naturalistic evolution:
The origin of the universe occurred about 14 billion years ago. The earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago. Life subsequently began, probably as bacteria deep in rocks, and has been evolving ever since. The process of evolution has been driven by purely natural forces, without input from a God or a Goddess or multiple deities. Many people have associated this belief system with strong Atheism. Certainly, some scientists who support naturalistic evolution do not believe in a supreme being or beings. But others believe both in evolution and in one or more Gods and/or Goddesses who do not intrude on the outcome of natural forces. Some of the latter are Deists who believe that God created the universe, started it in motion, left the universe, and allowed natural processes to originate life and drive evolution.
Theistic evolution:
Evolution happened just as supporters of naturalistic evolution believe, but it was a tool created, used, and/or controlled by God.
We have essays available which describe many aspects of this controversy. We do not extensively deal with religious views other than creation science. We concentrate on the various forms of creation science and on the two variants of evolution (naturalistic and theistic).
Note: The term "billion" is used in its North American sense to refer to one thousand million.
ORGAN DONATION
Transplantation saves lives, but only if you help. All you need to do is say yes to organ and tissue donation on your donor card and/or driver's license, sign up on your state’s donor registry (if there is one), and discuss your decision with your family.
Each day about 70 people receive an organ transplant, but another 16 people on the waiting list die because not enough organs are available.
Talk to your family members about organ and tissue donation so they know your wishes. Even if you've signed something, your family may be asked to give consent before donation can occur.
Many hotly debated social questions revolve around choice:
Giving gays and lesbians a choice in whether to marry;
Allowing women the freedom to choose an abortion;
Giving people access to assistance in dying.
All are emotionally laden questions. Discussions about euthanasia often get mired in a mountain of emotional accusations, such as charges that the "most vulnerable" of humans are "besieged by euthanasia practitioners" and that families must fight "anti-life assaults on their loved ones" which "threaten the lives of those who are medically vulnerable".
In reality, the basic question posed by euthanasia/assisted suicide is: should a person:
who is terminally ill, and
who feels that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain, and/or loss of dignity, and/or loss of capability and
who repeatedly and actively asks for help in committing suicide and
who is of sound mind and not suffering from depression
be given assistance in dying?
Euthanasia is not:
Whether a person should be free to ask a physician for assistance in dying. A patient can ask any question of their doctor.
Whether a particular physician should take the initiative to kill a patient. The dying person must be the person to take the initiative.
Whether a person should be allowed to commit suicide. In most jurisdictions, suicide is a legal act, and has been so for decades.
Whether an otherwise healthy person who is going through a period of depression should be given help in committing suicide. They would not be given such assistance under any proposed legislation. Instead, their depression would be treated.
Whether a person's family should be allowed to initiate euthanasia; a request for aid in dying would have to come from the terminally ill person.
Whether death squads should periodically visit hospitals and nursing homes in order to kill people who are no longer contributing to society. This is a red herring created to scare people.
Whether everyone should select physician assisted suicide. Even if it were generally available, only a small percentage of people would request it.
Ultimately, euthanasia is a question of choice: empowering people to have control over their own bodies. As of 1999-MAR, unless a person lives in Colombia, Japan, the Netherlands or the state of Oregon, the only lawful option is to remain alive, sometimes in intractable pain, until their body finally collapses.
The main opposition comes from some:
conservative religious groups. They are often the same organizations which oppose access to abortion.
medical associations whose members are dedicated to saving and extending life, and feel uncomfortable helping people end their lives.
groups concerned with disabilities, who fear that euthanasia is the first step towards a society that will kill disabled people against their will.
Groups that promote access to assisted suicide seem publicize cases where people have a terminal illness, are in intractable pain, and want to end their life. Although such cases do exist, they are in small minority. Many dying patients who are in serious pain have adequate access to pain-controlling medication. Most of those who would ask for assistance in dying may well be individuals concerned with quality of life or dignity issues.
Unfortunately, groups on all sides have resorted to scare tactics. They do not tackle the issue directly, but create false scenarios to alarm the public. These methods may work on the short term, but will only serve to eventually alienate the public:
Some groups in the pro-choice faction have described horrendous cases of terminally ill individuals, suffering terribly, in intractable pain, even though such cases are not the norm.
Some groups in the pro-life faction have been implying that "physician initiated murder" is the topic being debated, not physician assisted suicide. They have been raising the specter that the Oregon law would permit roving gangs of bureaucrats to visit nursing homes and decide which residents deserve to live and which to die; then they will kill all of the residents who they consider to be not worthy of life.
Even Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian group who has a reasonably good record of accuracy on social questions, appears to have misrepresented the question under debate. In an end-of-the-year review for 1997, their founder and president, Dr. Dobson, wrote: "By a sizable margin of 60-40 percent, Oregnonians [sic] have authorized their doctors to administer lethal doses of poison to willing patients...For the moment, if you are elderly and ill, Oregon is the last place you should want to be." 1 Dr. Dobson seems to have implied that elderly, ill residents of Oregon are at risk of being murdered against their will.
Dr. Abraham Halpern, an ex-president of the American Association of Psychiatry and the Law, and Dr. Alfred Freedman, ex-president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote an article in the New York Times, stating that "Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act...should be repealed. It greases the slippery slope and will surely result in undignified and unmerciful killings." 2 The implication is that if we allow some terminally ill patients to die that eventually laws will be created to allow the state to kill anyone that it deems to be worthless. Dr. Dobson agreed, stating: "We will eventually be killing those who aren’t sick, those who don’t ask to die, those who are young and depressed, those who someone considers to have a poor quality of life, and those who feel it is their obligation to 'get out of the way.'" 1 Of course, the future course of legislation cannot be predicted. But the present law that was approved by the voters of Oregon is very specific and narrow in application, and will never be used unless a terminally ill patient, who is of sound mind and not depressed, specifically requests assistance in dying on a repeated basis.
Some terminally ill patients are in intractable pain and/or experience an intolerably poor quality of life. They would prefer to end their life rather than continue until their body finally gives up. Does the state have a right to deny them their wish?
Suicide is a legal act that is theoretically available to all. But a person who is terminally ill or who is in a hospital setting or is disabled may not be able to exercise this option - either because of mental or physical limitations. In effect, they are being discriminated against because of their disability. Should they be given the same access to the suicide option as able-bodied people have?
Many faith groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away. Suicide would then be "considered as a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan". They feel that we are all stewards of our own lives, but that suicide should never be an option. This is an important belief for a member of one of these religious groups. They would probably never choose suicide (including physician assisted suicide) for themselves. But, for each deeply religious person in North America, there are many nominally religious or secular people. Substantial numbers of adults who have liberal religious beliefs treat euthanasia as a morally desirable option in some cases. There are also many secularists, atheists, agnostics etc. who actively disagree with religiously based arguments. And many of these folks would like to retain suicide as an option in case they develop a terminal illness and life becomes unbearable. Do devout believers have the right to take their own personal beliefs and extend them to the entire population? Should the personal beliefs of some religious folks decide public policy for all adults, including religious liberals, Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc?
Many faith groups believe that human suffering can have a positive value for the terminally ill person and for caregivers. For them, suffering can be "a divinely appointed opportunity for learning or purification". A Roman Catholic document mentions that "some Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified". 3 These may be meaningful suggestions to some Christian believers. However, can such arguments justify denying euthanasia to persons who do not share those beliefs?
Many people argue that pain experienced by terminally ill people can be controlled to tolerable levels through proper management. They conclude that there is no need for physician assisted suicide. However, tens of millions of individuals in North America do not have access to adequate pain management. Tens of millions are without healthcare coverage. Many doctors withhold adequate levels of pain killers because they are concerned that their patient may become addicted to the drugs. Anticipated cutbacks to health funding will make this situation worse.
By making assisted suicide and/or euthanasia available, some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families. This pressure may sometimes occur in very subtle forms. This is an important argument in favor of strict controls that would confirm that a patient is not being influenced by others. Some feel that the potential for interference is so serious that all assisted suicide should be banned.
Some people wish to die because they are suffering from clinical depression. This is another argument in favor of strict controls to confirm that a patient requesting aid in dying is "of sound mind".
In an age when total medical funding is restricted and being continually reduced, is it ethical to engage in extremely expensive treatment of terminally ill people in order to extend their lives by a few weeks, if it is against their will? The money used in this way is not available for pre-natal care, infant care, etc. where it would save lives, and significantly improve the long-term quality of life for others.
Some people argue that patients would be frightened that their physicians might kill them without permission. This is not a valid concern, since a patient would first have to request assistance in dying. If they did not ask for suicide assistance, their doctor would continue to preserve and extend their patients' lives.
Overview:
It is unfortunate that the term "cloning" refers to three very different procedures with three very different goals. It is also unfortunate that the first thought many people have when they hear the term is of horror movies which have showed the creation of human monsters or of armies of superhuman soldiers. Reality of cloning is very different.
The three different types of "cloning" are:
Embryo cloning: This is a medical technique which produces monozygotic (identical) twins or triplets. It duplicates the process that nature uses to produce twins or triplets. One or more cells are removed from a fertilized embryo and encouraged to develop into one or more duplicate embryos. Twins or triplets are thus formed, with identical DNA. This has been done for many years on various species of animals; only very limited experimentation has been done on humans.
Adult DNA cloning (a.k.a. reproductive cloning) This technique which is intended to produce a duplicate of an existing animal.Ithas been used to clone a sheep and other mammals. The DNA from an ovum is removed and replaced with the DNA from a cell removed from an adult animal. Then, the fertilized ovum, now called a pre-embryo, is implanted in a womb and allowed to develop into a new animal. As of 2002-JAN, It had not been tried on humans. It is specifically forbidden by law in many countries. There are rumors that Dr. Severino Aninori has successfully initiated a pregnancy through reproductive cloning. It has the potential of producing a twin of an existing person. Based on previous animal studies, it also has the potential of producing severe genetic defects. For the latter reason alone, many medical ethicists consider it to be a profoundly immoral procedure when done on humans.
Therapeutic cloning (a.k.a. biomedical cloning): This is a procedure whose initial stages are identical to adult DNA cloning. However, the stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo with the intent of producing tissue or a whole organ for transplant back into the person who supplied the DNA. The pre-embryo dies in the process. The goal of therapeutic cloning is to produce a healthy copy of a sick person's tissue or organ for transplant. This technique would be vastly superior to relying on organ transplants from other people. The supply would be unlimited, so there would be no waiting lists. The tissue or organ would have the sick person's original DNA; the patient would not have to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their life, as is now required after transplants. There would not be any danger of organ rejection.
There are major ethical concerns about all three types of cloning, when applied to humans.
Amelia Newcomb Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor
Does prayer belong in public schools?
Just over a week ago, the House of Representatives said no - barely. In its first vote on school prayer in 27 years, the House narrowly rejected a proposal for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools and religious displays in federal buildings.
But amid all the adult sparring over establishment of religion and freedom of speech, one point seems to have been lost: Lots of students around the United States are already praying while on school grounds - and they're doing it legally.
In the early morning, at lunch, or after the last bell rings, thousands of high school classrooms host gatherings of kids of varying faiths. There, sandwiched in between jobs, team practices, and homework, students congregate to pray about everything from upcoming tests to how to keep their school safe.
It's a phenomenon that may puzzle, anger, or thrill many of their parents, most of whom came of age in schools governed by the 1963 Supreme Court ruling that banned compulsory prayer in public schools and, for practical purposes, forbade religious activities while at school.
But the 1984 Equal Access Act is shaping a younger generation in an equally profound way. By 1990, when the act was upheld by the Supreme Court, federally funded schools were told they had to allow religious meetings if they also hosted other clubs not related to the curriculum. To skirt concerns about impositions on nonparticipants, it stipulated that prayer clubs be voluntary, student-led, and held outside class hours.
Since then, prayer clubs have become a hot ticket. First Priority, a Southern Baptist organization in Tennessee, has helped form clubs in 3,000 schools. Challenge 2000 Alliance, a group of Christian youth organizations, says there are more than 10,000 student-run Christian clubs in US high schools. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes has seen prayer "huddles" jump from about 3,400 in 1990 to about 6,500 today.
The rapid proliferation of groups, most of which are Christian, raises some concerns. Students of other faiths may feel left out or pressured to join in. The act's demand that clubs be student-run needs close monitoring to prevent adult manipulation. School officials also need to ensure that club members promote their activities in a way that doesn't offend others.
But in schools where clubs of different faiths operate, students can learn to coexist, to be sensitive to different points of view while still strengthening their own spiritual and moral values. Kids can see that faith doesn't have to be put on the bookshelf while at school, but can be a useful tool in times of need.
Send comments to newcomba@csps.com or Learning Editor, One Norway Street, Boston, MA 02115.
Before bookmarking this page in your browser, click here.
The URL for this page is: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/06/16/fp51s2-csm.htm
For further information:
Before bookmarking this page in your browser, click 