claustrophobia or sonambulism Paper the paper will be 4 pages long, double spaced, typed in 12 font. Please use APA format to the best of your ability. This means 1-inch margins, title page, and reference page. The title page and reference page do not count as part of the 4 pages. Your paper must include the following: Name the disorder you are writing about. What are the symptoms? How does it develop and what is the course of the illness? What is the treatment for this disorder? What is the prognosis? What are the incidence and prevalence of this disorder? Disorder I chose is either claustrophobia or sonambulism Junior year college I have to be able to open it on microsoft word... No power point needed just the paper

Hi! I can help you in your work,I am an expert and a gold medallist of my course, doing research in the field and have done this work for various other sites and have a very vast experience in the field. I am one of the dedicated scholars in this organization and can do your work effectively and efficiently without plagiarism. Give me a try.. Thanks and Regards

been doing peoples hnwrk through kijiji. year exp. so far mostly positive feedback

i'd pretty much enjoy working n this project; i find the subject really really interesting and i KNOW that if i had the chance, i'd deliver you a really good paper. I once wrote a paper about euthanasia for one guy here so, i;m going to copy paste it so that you kind of have an idea of how i work. hope you like it! ps: i'd really enjoy working n this project Euthanasia: circumstantial, subjective and interpretative Even if there are general agreements, laws, religions and other elements that were created in order to permit the person to live harmoniously in society, these elements will always be circumstantial for the individual, they will always be subjective and interpretative. Even our legislation approves this that I’ve said, when treating us like single individuals put together in what we like to call societies. Yes, there must exist rules in order to maintain equality, harmony and social order, because moral dictates so, but, till what extent shall the Will of the individual be sacrificed in order to satisfy the needs of conglomerates? This is what we should think about when referring to subjects like euthanasia. When we hear about this word, some of us tend to reject this idea right away because we only think about its concept and meaning, that according to the Oxford dictionary is ‘‘the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma’’. But we really take no time to go any deeper and to try to understand what motivates the human being to commit such action. Even if this is still a very controversial subject, it has existed for a very long time. Proof of that is part of the Hippocratic Oath, written by Hippocrates, where it says: ‘‘I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan’’. So, if there is something certain about euthanasia, it is the fact that it has always created controversy and rejection. There are different kinds of euthanasia. The active one, that happens when the patient requests to be assisted in the termination of his life, and the passive one, when there might be no request or approval from the patient, and the decision lies on the criteria of a third person (doctor or family member). It doesn’t matter whose choice it is, an inalienable characteristic of euthanasia is that there must exist a disability in the person it will be practiced on, to live his life in a satisfactory, healthy and worthy way; which I find could be very subjective. An example of this subjectivity could be the Aktion T4 program, executed in numerous parts of Germany from 1939 to 1941, where it is believed around 200,000 people were killed by euthanasia, not only because of their disability to live their lives properly, but also, because of the economical burden they represented for the rest of the society and the State. Thousands of sick people, women, kids, Jews and elders were assisted to terminate their lives. So, we could say that part of the controversy of euthanasia lies in its subjectivity. What one might see as worthy might seem atrocious and degrading for others; for so, I think euthanasia is right when it is active and indescribable when it is passive. Euthanasia is circumstantial, subjective and interpretative, and it will vary depending on the angle we are looking at it from. Religion for example, might never accept this action as human and correct, even if for some people, euthanasia is a very human practice derived from compassion. ‘‘Thou shall not kill’’ preaches the sixth Christian commandment, and lines like the one of Romans 5:3, teach us to be patient with our suffering and misery, because it is through them that perseverance and character are produced, through what Hope is created. In fact, euthanasia is all over the bible. There’s Judges 9:54 telling us about how Abimelech asked his armor-bearer to assist him with his death, when finding himself mortally wounded; we could also see how Saul killed himself after been mortally wounded in a battle, or Judges 16:29, when Samson killed himself when battling against the enemy. We see euthanasia all over our bibles, and it is still wrong to commit such action. Society nowadays, making us feel like if life will only be worth living when we are wealthy, healthy, beautiful and successful; if some of that is missing, there will always be obstacles to make us feel miserable, and self-transcendece will not be anything more than a mere dream. This perception of life we have come to create through thousands of years is an important factor to have in mind when talking about the motivation of living. People do not appreciate life for what they should be appreciating it. With time, we have come to conclude that if there is no balance between our spiritual and physical life, then our lives shall not be worth living. But does life really have to be perfect in order to be worthy? So, what I’m really trying to say with this is that there is an existential clutter about this subject. We reject this idea, because we have come to conclude that it is not ethical to terminate someone’s life, (because that power only belongs to God or for some other reason) but the truth is that the physical death, is already an unavoidable act and what really is wrong, is the cause that leads us to terminate life. The confusion and lack of ethic here, does not lie in the death itself, but in all the things that we require in order to be happy and to want to keep on living. In Utopia, while creating the perfect country, Thomas More talks about how euthanasia is alright. So, in this perfect place, euthanasia is a personal choice, because the author has recognized that it really is an individual matter, not a social one. So, every time I find myself submerged in social riddles like this one, I think of Jean Jacques Rousseau and remember that we will always be free, as long as our actions don’t affect the others. Society has no right to tell a human being what to do with his misery, because it is not society who is suffering it. When executing this action on someone else, I don’t see society committing a sin, but an act of compassion (derived from our concept of worthy, dignity and value of life). Therefore I tell you again that euthanasia is neither right nor wrong; it is circumstantial, subjective and interpretative.