Speech on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide free essay sample

There is one question which has haunted and shaped society for thousands of years. It underlies all human relationships. It underlies all ethical decisions. The question is: Am I my brothers keeper? The answering of that question has led, throughout history, to the righting of major injustices, like the abolition of the slave trade. But the usual answer to that archetypal question may be about to be rewritten in the United Kingdom. The answer yes is about to be replaced by the answer no. Let me put it another way: Can I be my brothers killer? For thousands of years the answer has been no; but in legal terms, in the UK, the answer yes is being seriously proposed: Yes, you may kill your brother in certain defined circumstances. When euthanasia was considered by a House of Lords Select Committee in 1993-4, it said this: societys prohibition of intentional killing [is] a prohibition which is the cornerstone of law and social relationships. We will write a custom essay sample on Speech on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page It protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. Those are solemn and profound words. They are now under attack philosophically; listen to these words from Professor John Harris of Manchester University about our ability to make choices and the freedom to choose between competing conceptions of how to live: it is only by the exercise of autonomy that our lives become in any real sense our own. The ending of our lives determines lifes final shape and meaning, both for ourselves and in the eyes of others. When we are denied control of the end of our lives, we are denied autonomy. It is an appealing and seductive argument, and goes with the grain of our society: Its my life and I can do what I want with it or, if you prefer Frank Sinatras kitsch version: I did it my way. But a moments thought will reveal that, actually, the choices I make as an individual impinge on others that, ultimately, is why we have laws, to enable us to decide who has the priority or what is just. In the case of euthanasia, this Bill, proposed by Lord Joffe, if passed, would give any one of us the right (in given circumstances) to demand and require that another human being kills us. In the interests of fairness, I must also point out that in the assisted suicide part of the Bill, what I would have the right to demand and require is that someone should provide me with the means by which I could kill myself. The major question about the fundamental principle of the Bill, personal autonomy, is whether this is a philosophically and morally secure basis on which society can operate. I do not believe it is. A more nuanced version of the personal autonomy argument, and one which I strongly support, is to talk of principled autonomy in which: the rights of an individual always go hand in hand with the duty of the individual to other people. [Professor Robin Gill] It was a point which was made very powerfully by the Archbishop of Canterbury in an article (entitled Does a right to assisted death entail a responsibility on others to kill? ) in The Times on 20th January 2005. So:  · I believe the Bill is profoundly flawed because it strikes at the heart of the moral basis which prohibits intentional killing.  · I believe the Bill, as it stands, is profoundly flawed on philosophical grounds. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, we spelt out what we described as five bedrock principles which should undergird all discussion of euthanasia. The principles are these: 1. Life is God-given and therefore has intrinsic sanctity, significance and worth. 2. Human beings are in relationship with the created order a relationship characterised by such words as respect, enjoyment and responsibility. 3. Human beings, while flawed by sin, nevertheless have the capacity to make free and responsible moral choices. Human meaning and purpose are found in our relationship with God, in the exercise of freedom, critical self-knowledge and in our relationships with one another and the wider community. 5. This life is not the sum total of human existence; we find our ultimate fulfilment in eternity with God, through Christ.  · You will see, if you compare those five bedrock principles with the Joffe Bill, that the Bill fails in a number of areas, not least because it does not even open the door a fraction of an inch to any concept that life might be derived from God or might move ultimately back to God. The next reason I am against this Bill is because its proponents say they want eventually to extend its range. Lord Joffe: We are starting off, this is a first stage †¦ I believe that this Bill initially should be limited, although I would prefer it to be of wider application. I find that chilling, for a whole variety of obvious reasons. Allow me to give an example from the Netherlands. In the Netherlands (unlike Oregon) the medical profession makes no distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia but, as Dr Johann Legemaate told us on the Select Committee: Many doctors prefer euthanasia for practical and clinical reasons. There are approximately 140,000 natural deaths in the Netherlands each year. Almost 10. 000 requests for euthanasia are made annually; about 3,500 actually receive euthanasia and approximately 300 are assisted suicides. Somewhere between 1 in 32 and 1 in 38 of all deaths in the Netherlands are now via euthanasia/assisted suicide. In addition, it is estimated that there are about 1,000 deaths per annum where doctors end a patients life without an explicit request; for example, those who are in a coma. I need to point out that the medical system in the Netherlands is very different from ours and that palliative care provision is a relatively new phenomenon. The figures from Holland, worry me greatly I need to add that in the Netherlands you do not have to be terminally ill to request help to die: We do not exclude †¦ exceptional situations in which, for instance, somebody who is fifty-five and has a very severe but incurable mental illness which relates to a situation of hopeless and unbearable suffering, and asks for assisted suicide. The Swiss situation is very different. Euthanasia is not allowed under Swiss law but assisted suicide is, though you have to belong to one of the associations (for example Dignitas or Exit) in order to receive help with assisted suicide. If there were more time, I would tell you about my Swiss experience †¦ So, I am against the Bill because the evidence I have seen in the Netherlands suggests that there really is a slippery slope, and as the proponents of the Bill want to extend its scope eventually, I think that its wiser to try to defeat it now. And in case you think the slippery slope is not slippery, allow me to bring to your attention some evidence I heard from an oncologist from Oregon who told a meeting I attended, that since the introduction of assisted suicide in Oregon, far more people now suffer from lack of palliative care in the terminal stages of their illness than did so before the legislation was introduced. Try this statistic: we were told that 60% of doctors in Oregon do not see Medicaid patients, that is, the poorest people of the state, yet Medicaid continues to pay for the poorest if they opt for assisted suicide. Or this: 75% of doctors in Oregon who prescribed lethal doses of barbiturates for those who wanted to commit suicide, were not present at the patients subsequent death. Now listen to my original question: Am I my brothers keeper? Tragically, in my view, the slippery slope has been notched up by a few degrees in the last couple of weeks by the British Medical Association who have taken, by a narrow majority of 53% in favour, the view that they should remain morally neutral on this issue and that it is: primarily a matter for Society and for Parliament. The notion of neutrality on such a subject is tragically misplaced. Are doctors not part of society? Are doctors neutral on subjects such as smoking? Will they not have to administer the lethal doses? Are they not the ones who will see their relationship with patients change? Will the conscience clauses proposed for doctors in the Joffe Bill be in practice any more significant than those in the Abortion Bill? Have they had any conversations with the Royal College of Nursing about their opposition to the Bill? Is it not alarming that some members of the Royal College of Physicians can talk about euthanasia or assisted dying as a therapeutic option? I find that Orwellian. Listen again to the question: Am I my brothers keeper? Its a question which should be engraved above the door of every hospital and every surgery in the land; and, of course, the BMA itself in the terrorist attacks in London, answered the question with a resounding Yes when they rushed from their Headquarters to assist the wounded and the dying – and did so with enormous professionalism and compassion.. Of course, I am not arguing in favour of prolonged suffering; and I want to point out, to be fair, that many of those in favour of the Bill are proposing it on compassionate grounds. We all know, myself included, that one of the most terrible things that can happen to us, as human beings, is to watch someone we love go through suffering. It is agony. We want to soothe and cherish them, take away the pain. Our helplessness, if we cannot do so, is appalling; and if the one suffering is our own child, then anguish is piled on anguish. It is awful no other word will do. It is because many of us have suffered in this way that we can see, at first glance, the reasons why, if someone is suffering terribly with a terminal illness, we might consider euthanasia to be a desirable option. This is a huge and daunting ethical dilemma but it seems to me that what the Bill proposes is a sign of failure, a gesture of despair. We have the best palliative care system in the world, in the UK, but it is patchy and needs much greater resource. We have, too, within much of the medical profession, a massive desire to help, combined with a massive desire to control – and thus, to acknowledge and deal with the inevitability of death, is an affront and is frequently avoided. Empty beds in hospices in the UK is evidence for this. What is needed is not what some are calling, in a horrible travesty of language, the therapeutic option of euthanasia or assisted suicide, but far greater resource – for greater training in palliative care, a care which embraces body, mind and soul. I do not doubt for one second that this subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide is one of the most important questions facing our country. The answer that Parliament provides, if it votes in favour of the Bill, will shift human relationships, it will damage doctor-patient trust, it will make the vulnerable feel even more vulnerable. If we, as the Church of England, in concert with other Churches, do not try to shape and influence the debate, we shall have failed terribly. The question running through this entire subject, is the one asked by Cain after he had killed Abel: Am I my brothers keeper? I have to believe, because of Christ, that there is only one answer to that question – and that is the answer Yes. And the answer yes precludes euthanasia and it precludes assisted suicide; but it also lays upon us a moral duty to ensure that palliative care, care for body, mind and soul, is available to everyone.

Biogenetics essays

Biogenetics essays An article published on April 25, 1953 in the science journal Nature written by scientists James Watson and Francis Crick, modestly suggested a model for the structure and replication of the DNA (refer to picture 1), the face of science changed forever (Aldridge, 8). The evolution of technology has reached a point where it is capable of creating and modifying the DNA using Biogenetics Engineering. Although Biogenetics Engineering is becoming a more well known subject to the general public, there are definitely issues and uncertainties to be resolved. There are doubts about how safe Biogenetics Engineering is, and also how difficult it will be to control it. Furthermore, for the first time in the history of mankind, humans passed from the status of being created, to the status of being creators. In my opinion, Biogenetics is risky; however, it is already here and now the best solution is to try to control it. Biogenetics Engineering first took shape as experimentation into finding cures for diseases and the production of antibiotics. The process involves the ability to reproduce and modify the DNA. In one common method used, the desired molecules of DNA are removed from the donor organism and implanted into the genetic material, so it can react and reproduce in the new genetic organism. In my point of view, this process does no damage to the environment. On the other hand, there is a certain stage where the process has to be tested on animals, or even humans. In some cases, the process can cause serious damage to the organism, maybe even leading to death. The main point is not the process, which Biogenetics Engineering has made, but mostly, the outcome of this process. An article from the Pure Food Campaign stated that Biogenetics Engineers will be creating thousands of new organisms over the next few years, and the result can seriously harm the biological environment. The article impl ies that the prospect is frightening regarding...

An Overview of Political Conservatism

An Overview of Political Conservatism Principles Ideologies Political conservatism is a term applied to people who believe in: Economic liberty and the central role of free enterprise in American societyA small, non-invasive governmentA strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism The most influential national political organization for conservatives in the US is the Republican party, although the recent Tea Party phenomenon is perhaps the most tightly aligned with the ideologies mentioned above. There are also many advocacy groups that focus on the promotion of these initiatives. Ancillary Principles Ideologies Conservatives are often wrongly equated with the Christian-right. For years, social conservatives held a firm grip on the Republican Party and by extension the entire conservative movement. For religious conservatives, the principles and ideologies mentioned above are ancillary to the wedge issues that threaten Christian culture. These include: Traditional family values and the sanctity of marriageA commitment to faith and religionThe right to life for every human being While many mainstream conservatives agree with these concepts, most believe they are secondary to the core tenets mentioned previously. Political Leaders Most conservative political leaders tend to be Republican. In most cases, Republican politicians seek to gain the trust of the conservative community. President Ronald Reagan was perhaps the modern conservative movements most important political leader. He ushered in a number of socially conservative initiatives and is widely regarded as the icon of political conservatism. The father of modern conservatism, who was known as Mr. Conservative, was Barry Goldwater. Other conservative leaders have included notable figures such as Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, George H.W. Bush and Strom Thurmond. Conservative Justices, Media Intellectuals Outside Congress and the White House, the Supreme Court and the national media have a strong influence on US conservative politics and perspectives. Supreme Court Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and judge Robert Bork have all had a major impact on the interpretation of law. In the media, Rush Limbaugh, Patrick Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity are seen as the conservatives whose opinions have tremendous influence today. In the 20th Century, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. were perhaps the most influential and highly regarded conservative intellectuals. Campaigns Elections To be an effective political leader, a conservative must first run an effective campaign. Perhaps no other campaign has been as important to the conservative movement as the one run in 1964 between Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Although Goldwater lost, the principles he fought for and the legacy he left have resounded with conservatives ever since. Nevertheless, conservatives who run campaigns today often appeal to social conservatives, using abortion, the second amendment, the sanctity of marriage, school prayer and the War on Terror as the key planks in their political platforms. War on Terror In the 20th Century, the Vietnam war stiffened the resolve of conservatives to never again suffer defeat at the hands of a foreign enemy. The War on Terror began with the attack on 9/11, and conservatives remain largely divided about what the battle parameters should be. Most believe the War on Terror must be won at all costs. The decision to invade Afghanistan to search for Osama bin Laden found favor with many conservatives as did the invasion of Iraq to find al Queda operatives. Despite liberal opposition, conservatives see victory in Iraq as the key front in the war against international terrorism. Division of Church State Because conservatives have such a strong belief in small, non-invasive government, most believe the state shouldnt dictate morality or interfere with the church. Conversely, they believe that although government should be free of religion, it shouldnt be free from religion. To conservatives, school prayer isnt an exercise of the institution, but of the individual and should, therefore, be allowed. Most conservatives oppose the idea of a welfare state and believe the government should regulate standards, not appropriate funding, since private organizations are often better equipped to deal with social problems. Abortion Stem Cell Research For social conservatives, no other issue is as important as abortion. Christian conservatives believe in the sanctity of all life including embryos and believe it is morally wrong to abort living fetuses. Consequently, the pro-life movement and the fight against abortion rights is often incorrectly equated with the conservative movement as a whole. While most conservatives are pro-life, the issues gray areas make it as highly debatable inside the conservative movement as they do anywhere else. Still, most conservatives believe abortion is the same as murder and, like murder, should be against the law. Capital Punishment The death penalty debate is another very controversial issue among conservatives. Opinions vary and depend mostly on what type of conservative ideology the person espouses. Compassionate conservatives believe in the Christian concept of forgiveness and compassion, whereas other types of conservatives believe that when justice for murder is delivered, the punishment should fit the crime. In most cases, conservatives believe the well-being of the victim is more important than that of the criminal, and thus capital punishment is justified. Others believe in rehabilitation and a life of repentance and service to God. Economy Taxes Libertarians and Constitutionalists are natural fiscal conservatives due to their desire to reduce government spending, pay off the national debt and shrink the size and scope of government. Although the Republican Party is most often credited with reducing government waste, but big-spending from the most recent GOP administration has hurt the partys reputation. Most conservatives identify themselves as fiscal conservatives because of their desire to deregulate the economy through lower taxes and incentives for small businesses. Most conservatives believe the government should leave the private sector alone. Education, Environment Foreign Policy The most important education issue concerning conservatives has to do with how the theories of creation and evolution are taught in schools. Social conservatives believe that, at the very least, the biblical concept of creation should be taught as an alternative to the evolution theory. More radical creationists believe evolution shouldnt be taught at all because it undermines the notion of mankind being created in Gods image. Another issue is school vouchers, which give parents the freedom to choose which school their children should attend. Conservatives are largely in favor of education vouchers, believing it to be their right to choose where their children receive their education. Conservatives have traditionally argued that global warming was a myth, but recent scientific evidence has indicated it to be a reality. In the face of these overwhelming studies, some conservatives still cling to the idea that it is a myth and that the statistics are skewed. Other conservatives, such as crunchy conservatives, advocate for a cleaner, greener way of living and are in favor of providing the private sector with economic incentives to reduce pollution and develop alternative fuel sources. When it comes to foreign policy, conservatives are divided on this issue as well. Paleoconservatives take a largely non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, but neoconservatives believe that failure to intervene in international affairs is tantamount to isolationism and as such, stokes the flames of terrorism. Conservative Republicans in Washington are mostly neoconservatives, who support Isreal and the War on Terror.

Technology in the classroom Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Technology in the classroom - Essay Example The addition of these technological advancements within the classroom has several benefits and disadvantages associated with it for both teachers and students. Adoption of technology in classroom can help in satisfying different learning needs of different students within the classroom. A classroom comprises of various students who belong to different backgrounds and who prefer to learn in a different manner. According to the left side brain versus right side brain researchers, students who experience domination of the left side brain learn with the aid of artistic materials such as videos (Templeton, 2012). Furthermore, the students who experience right side brain dominance prefer learning through notes and lectures. Technological advancements such as multimedia devices help both kinds of students in learning at the same time. These devices have the ability to exhibit videos that support the students who learn through creative material and these devices can be used to exhibit text in form of PowerPoint slides and this supports the learning of students who prefer learning through texts and lectures. Adoption of technology within classrooms increases the access to information which helps both the student and the teacher population. A survey was conducted by Purcell et al. during the period of 2013 and in this survey the researchers figured out that 92% of teachers use technology such as internet in their classroom to access content over the internet and this content helps them in delivering more information to the students (Purcell et al., 2013). This study clearly explains that internet use can increase the access of information in classroom and students and teachers go beyond basic textbooks to facilitate learning. Inclusion of technology has replaced the use of paper in classroom and this is helping in solving a major issue of excessive cutting down of trees. Lindquist conducted a

The Nuremberg Main Trials Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Nuremberg Main Trials - Essay Example However, Nuremberg was flawed, to a certain extent, and it is sensible to assume that its imperfections could be the most integral features of it deserving of attention at present. Still, many would believe that there are other features, as well, and that a number of these address undying desires for the triumph of fairness and justice.2 This essay examines the appropriateness of the indictments, the issue of jurisdiction, and general questions of legality with reference to the ‘fair trial principle’ in the Nuremberg main trial. Appropriateness of the Indictments The function of the IMT at Nuremberg was to formally question the ‘main’ German war criminals. IMT had two members from each of the four participating nations, namely, the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. These members would shape various paradigms of criminal law and process.3 The IMT mission was instigated in 1945, as soon as the Committee of Chief Counsels of the four p arties to the London Agreement—a declaration that specify the guidelines and law through which the Nuremberg trials were to be carried out-- approved and passed an indictment laying down the criminal acts arraigned against the ‘main’ war criminals.4 The indictment convicted them with four violations: ‘(1) common plan or conspiracy, (2) crimes against peace, (3) war crimes, and (4) crimes against humanity.’5 Common plan or conspiracy The scholars of the Nuremberg Trials claimed that it is crucial to impugn the guiltiest offenders for conniving to pursue the Nazi persecution of the Jews and other acts of violence. Nevertheless, it was not a war misdeed for the nation to perpetrate acts of violence against its own people.6 For that reason, â€Å"[t]he American motives for spinning the dense web of conspiracy to inculpate the Nazi brass is no secret in that the stratagem was essentially intended to procure legal grounds for holding the instigators of th e Nazi movement accountable for the record of ‘domestic’ bestialities against assorted segments of their own population, including the Jewish minority.†7 In view of that, a conspiracy conviction was seen crucial so as to impugn individuals for planning or pursuing a common plan to perpetrate crimes against civilians. The Tribunal took into account the indictment of common plan or conspiracy on the basis of two rationales: first is the blameworthiness of organisations, and second is whether the war criminals had connived to pursue genocide and persecution. The latter rationale was settled under the accusation of ‘crimes against peace’.8 The Tribunal, as regards to the accusation of ‘conspiracy’, simply deemed: In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence establishes the common planning to prepare and wage war by certain of the defendants. It is immaterial to consider whether a single conspiracy... has been conclusively proved.9 Moreover, t he Tribunal resolutely strived to lessen the possible perils to minor collaborators or innocent members which could have stemmed from its judgment to charge four organisations of war crimes.10 As claimed by Professor Schwarzenberger, â€Å"

First Kiss :: essays research papers

My First Kiss I was five. He was six. When we first found out we had to hold hands during the second scene of the Christmas Pageant we both had the same response, â€Å"EW Gross!†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Josh and I had known each other basically all of our lives. Our grandparents were friends, our parents were friends and even our siblings were friends. It was as if we were destine to be friends too because of family genes.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Every Sunday afternoon, after church, me, my parents, my grandparents and my brother along with Josh’s parents, grandparents, and brother, would all go to Josh’s house. It was a ritual that started back as early as I can remember and still is carried out today.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The parents would chat over coffee, our older siblings would ride their bikes and Josh and I would play in the sandbox. â€Å"Let’s play house.† I would always say. To which Josh responded, â€Å"No way. House is for girls. Let’s play ninjas. HIYA!† So we made a compromise. I was the mommy, the cat was the baby and Josh was the â€Å"ninja† daddy.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When you’re five years old you don’t really think of boys as boys or girls as girls. Other kids are just your friends, whether they wear a pink dress or blue slacks. Never before did I really think of Josh as a boy till I was forced to hold his hand in the pageant.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Both of us whined and complained and if my memory severs my correctly, Josh threw an out right tantrum about the whole scene. Yet still we were forced to stand there hand in hand.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It was performance night and our parents came back stage for a pep talk. My mom fixed my frilled dress and Josh’s mom straightened his hair and both of our mothers basically told us to go out there and smile whether we liked it or not.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The time for our big scene came. We waited in the wings for our cue and finally we were pushed out on stage.

Aboriginal Land Claims in Canada

Aboriginal land claims is the proposition contained in formal statements that are submitted to the provincial and/ or federal government by Aboriginal community claiming that the Crown has not honored its obligations or commitment in respect to treaty or Aboriginal rights as pertains land ownership and usage.Aboriginal land claims are Aboriginal (or Native) people’s claims about their land ownership rights which they inhabited before settlers, primarily Europeans arrived. It is a process that has been active for several decades in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.This dispute has been in existence due to the native populations’ displacement from their historical land or territory by the European settlers’ arrival.[1]The federal government is particularly involved in most Aboriginal land claims as the primary jurisdiction organ in this matter. The provinces are specifically involved in the sense that their involvement basically rests in ascertai ning historical occurrences that gave rise to such claims. Most of these claims require such assertion on private property, natural resources and Crown lands.The original treaties are therefore considered to evaluate the extent they have been honored or dishonored and the necessary redress in case of dishonor of the same.There is marked difficulty in defining aboriginal rights due to the diversity of the aboriginal cultures but most commonly, these aboriginal rights are defined as collective, inherent rights flowing from their traditional land occupation which is now the present Canada and other orders which are basically social pre-contacts.To many, this implies independence rights through culture, land, resources, governance and other aspects in respect to their self-determination.[2] This is as the Inuit, Mà ©tis and Indian peoples of Canada assert their rights. In this respect therefore, the nation, environment and race context must be put into consideration in dealing with thi s controversial issue that have raised much conflict and debate for several years.The 7th October, 1763 Royal Proclamation had been organized such that the North American’s new acquisitions by the Britain’s governments would not interfere with the Indian’s land interests, particularly in the Ohio Valley.It was also supposed to end the Great Abuses and Frauds. The major reason that led to this declaration was the fact that this area which was referred to as â€Å"Indian Territory† was reserved by the Royal Proclamation since it had not been ceded to or purchased by the British governments. It was thus reserved to them for their hunting endeavors and these Indians were not to be disturbed or molested even though they remained under Britain's protection.Much of the 20th Century Northern Canada’s development and settlement process has been subjected to these land claims which have been comprehensive for past thirty years, and as a result have undergone some significant transformational changes.This is as the aboriginal people have engaged themselves in the encroachment process concerning their customary livelihood restrictions as well as the transformation of their traditional territories.This involved; sedentarization and population relocation, governmental restrictions on fishing and hunting, river systems contamination, diversion, alterations, impoundment and pollution.[3] In the 1970s, Aboriginal legal and political action stimulated formal process establishments that were aimed at Aboriginal land claims resolution and revision of the treaty rights as well as the Aboriginal judicial interpretation.This is particularly seen in the geographers’ documentation of the claims. Furthermore, these documentations overtly expounds these remedies’ effectiveness as concerns the Canadian perspective changes towards the northern Aborigines, development and environment, and how the northern Canada resource regimes have been al tered by these land claims. There is therefore need for cultural understanding and personal awareness development that will foster positive attitudinal reflections on indigenous people’s contribution to overall Canadian development. [1] Charlesworth Max, 1984. The Aboriginal Land Rights Movement. New York: Hodja Educational Resources, pp.45 [2] Brock Peggy, 2001. Words and Silences: Aboriginal Women, Politics and Land. New York: Allen & Unwin, pp.32 [3] Crane John, 1994. Directions for Social Welfare in Canada: The Public’s Review. University of British Columbia Press, pp.12