Once again we are treating the consequence of a problem and not the source of it. Plastic bags are a massive problem for the environment. However, it is not through the prohibition of supermarket plastic bags that we are going to solve the problem. We have plastic everywhere. The problem is not the plastic bags but what we do with them after they have been used. It is a total hypocrisy to stop giving plastic bags in supermarkets as a way of looking for the environment if the government does not establish a serious recycling program for household waste. The issue of plastic bags seem to be much more a matter of doing the ‘right’ thing with the ‘wrong’ intention. Supermarkets owners are saving their money by not giving ‘free’ plastic bags while consumers are being encouraged to purchase reusable plastic bags that cost 20 or 30 times more than the ordinary ones. What is really good for the environment is a radical change in our consumption habits, rather than having wealthy hypocrite supermarket owners pretending to be green by making lobby to convince society that bags are bad!

Instead of a compulsory subject in schools, LIBRAS could be taught as a complimentary subject adding extra scores to those that join the course and are approved with good grades. That would maybe raise awareness of the need to be connected to the deaf community as well as developing new skills, especially in children.

Plagiarism is a serious problem worldwide. There is a number of organizations, guidelines, rules and codes of conduct that tries to identify and prevent, specially at the academic level, plagiarism. Some studies show that plagiarism decreases as the academic level goes up. This means that in a post-doc plagiarism is less likely to happen than in undergraduate level.

Certainly plagiarism should be punished with relevant penalty once it can produce damage for human health. It is known of a physician that has taken data from a certain source and used them to support certain practices that would bring benefit for himself. Internet and all the digital advance is making plagiarism easier to do in our days. However, this very digital advance is making much easily possible to detect plagiarism through new tools that can track and discover if a given document or essay is or is not a fraud.

Could we apply this only to corrupt politicians?! Death penalty has proved not to solve the problem of violence or criminality because it is a method that tackles the end of a process and not the source of the problem. Apart from the enormous injustice that could be made by punishing with death an innocent, another problem is that no man has the right of taking away other people’s life, especially with legal support. Eliminating an individual from society by means of a death penalty does not eliminate the evil present in this very society that ultimately generates actions that theoretically would demand death penalty. Society must turn its eyes to the source of its problems rather than only in the consequence of them.

It is true that the Olympic Games will bring a lot of visibility to Brazil and that people will come and spend their money here. However, it is also true that an economy such as ours, in a country with politicians such as ours, spending all the money that will be spent to create the infrastructure required for the Olympics might be a threat to Brazil. We have the example of Greece that is still struggling to pay the debt they had with the Olympics in 2004. At the end of the day, are we not taking the same risk?

Arguments pro abortion of anencephalic babies

Brazil’s Supreme Court has recently approved a Law that allows the abortion of anencephalic fetuses. Opinions are divided among lawyers, religious leaders, physicians and people in general whether this kind of abortion should be considered or not as a crime.

From our perspective there is no crime in this specific situation for this is ultimately a matter of respect to women’s health. Some physicians say that a brainless fetus has no possibility of life outside the womb. Some even argue that anencephaly is equivalent to brain death, situation in which the termination of life is legally allowed, including donation of organs. Professor Waldo E. Nelson, from the University of Philadelphia, says: “In anencephaly the trunk and limbs are normally formed, but the neck is short. The brain is represented by a vascular mass in which optic nerves end blindly, the condition is incompatible with maintained extrauterine life” (Textbook of Pediatrics, p. 1075).

From the humanitarian perspective, in cases such as this, the woman is exposed to a degrading and humiliating situation thus pregnancy is supposed to be a moment of joy and not a celebration of death after 9 months, for the baby will certainly die right after his/her birth. Estimated time of life for an anencephalic baby is, at the best, 24 hours, according to Febrasgo – Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations.

It is important to highlight that abortion of anencephalic fetuses is not considered crime in countries such as The United States, Spain, Switzerland and Poland.

In summary, prohibiting the abortion of anencephalic fetuses is a psychological process equivalent to torture, according to Dr. Talvane de Moraes, psychiatrist that took part in the Supreme Court judgment on this important matter. Women’s expectation is leaving the hospital with a cradle, not a coffin.

Nilma Sampaio

Wanderley de Mattos Júnior