1.”How Mom’s Death Changed My Thinking About End-of-Life Care”

It seems counterintuitive that relatives of elderly would want to prolong the inevitable, resulting in more pain and suffering for their loved one. You spend all this money, holding onto a sliver of hope that your loved one can have a miracle, but what if that is not want the patient wants. Does the patient really want to be barley clinging onto life, to live artificially, or to even allow their families to see them in their current state? I would argue that they wouldn’t. I also find it counterintuitive that people would not listen to the medical professional’s advice and continue to pay and make their loved one suffer when the chances to survival are slim to none. If the doctor of 10+ years is telling you that it may be time to pull the plug, maybe its best to listen, regardless of how hard it may be to accept or deal with. Because at the end of the day you are not only responsible for how much suffering and agony your loved one goes through, but you are also responsible or your own mental health too. Seeing your mom in a hospital bed, with just an artificial heart beat keeping her alive knowing that there is no coming back, why would you want to put yourself through that?

2. “Vancouver combats heroin by giving its addicts the best smack in the world”

It seems counterintuitive that you would give addicts heroine, FOR FREE, to combat the issue of addiction, rather than send them to rehab for free as well. These addicts are essentially slaves to their own desires and are encouraged to get high at these facilities instead of on the street so that it is less dangerous. What may seem to be helpful to the addicts, is not even humane. Giving them what they want, instead of providing the help they need is main issue with this. What it seems to me is that the higher ups have no intentions of actually solving the problem of addiction, but instead solve the problem of having homeless people dead on the streets from overdosing, which can cast a bad reputation on the city. Because if you can suppress the what people are actually seeing in the street, then maybe it seizes to exists to some to some extent and people can just forget about the glaring problem.

3. “Pizza hut at Pyramids”

It seems counterintuitive that big corporations would allow fast food locations to be opened near tourist attractions such as the great pyramids. It simply does not make sense to me if your are trying to preserve the natural beauty of the area. These attractions have been around for centuries, barley untouched by human nature, and yet the human species can still find a way to ruin it. It is also counterintuitive to even make the restaurant fast food. If people are there trying to learn about the history and culture of the place, wouldn’t it make sense to make the food something cultural? If the big corporations that ran those tourist excursions really cared about experience of the guests then they would let the area be seen for what it is. At the end of the day though, all the big companies really care about is money. And at the same time the company running those trips probably also owns the fast food places, so to them why wouldn’t it make sense to throw in a fired chicken spot next to a place where a lot of walking is required. Sounds like a lot more revenue.