Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
--------
Question: Paragraph: In almost all the 12 countries polled, three-quarters or more of those responding to questions posed by the Swiss Medical Lawyers Association (SMLA) said people should be able to decide when and how they die. Two-thirds to three-quarters of them said they could imagine opting for assisted suicide themselves if they suffered from an incurable illness, serious disability or uncontrollable pain. “In practically all European countries, many signs indicate that the prevailing legal system no longer reflects the will of large parts of the population on this issue,” the SMLA said. The results of its poll “should allow politicians to take democratic principles into account when considering legislation on these issues,” it added in its introduction to the study. Assisted suicide is now allowed only in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland. The German government has proposed legalizing it as long as no profit is involved while France is debating whether to allow it. In both Germany and France, the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches oppose legalizing euthanasia and argue for better palliative care to ease pain for dying patients. The study was conducted by the Swiss pollster Isopublic in Austria, Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. It did not survey the four European countries that allow assisted suicide, or countries in eastern Europe. Germans were most open to letting people decide when and how they die, with 87 percent supporting the idea, and results slowly descended to Denmark’s 71 percent in 11th place. Greece was the only exception to this strong support, with only 52 percent backing the idea of allowing assisted suicide. Spaniards were the most willing to consider asking for help to die, with 78 percent support, followed closely by Germans (77 percent) and the French (75 percent). In Britain, 71 percent said they might seek assisted suicide while Greece was again the most reluctant with 56 percent saying they might do so. More than three-quarters of those polled in all countries said only doctors or trained practitioners should perform assisted suicides. A majority of all respondents said doctors should not lose their licenses if they help a patient die. Results ranged from 84 percent in Britain to 58 percent in Greece. About 30 percent of those polled thought dying patients might occasionally be pressured by relatives or doctors into accepting assisted suicide if it is legalized. Roughly another 30 percent thought this would almost never happen. In Germany, where the government’s bill is now being debated in parliament, 76 percent said the proposed law was wrong to ban assisted suicide if the doctor is paid for the service. The bill would not punish those helping patients commit suicide, for example by accompanying them to Switzerland where assisted suicide has been legal since 1942. A rise in dying foreigners - particularly from Germany, France and Britain - ending their lives there has prompted calls for tighter laws, but Zurich voters rejected in 2010 a proposed ban on what opponents called “suicide tourism”. In the United States, assisted suicide is allowed in Oregon, Washington and Montana. Massachusetts voters narrowly defeated a proposal to legalize it there this month. Claim: Large Europe majorities for assisted suicide: survey.

Answer: Large majorities of west Europeans favor the legalization of assisted suicide, now allowed only in four countries on the continent, according to a new survey.


Question: Paragraph: Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question. This story did the best job of the three stories we reviewed in quantifying the potential benefits observed in the study. “Over the next five to six years, those intensive users suffered strokes at a rate of 0.3 percent per year. That compared with just over 0.5 percent among non-users, and 0.4 percent among moderate users. When the researchers factored in other diet habits, exercise levels and major risk factors for stroke — like high blood pressure and diabetes — heavy olive oil use was tied to 41 percent reduction in the odds of stroke.” There are better ways to try to communicate numbers of less than one percent. But we applaud the detail provided. Not applicable. Excellent. The story devoted almost 200 words to the potential limitations of such an observational study. Also a clear description of the cohort design. No disease-mongering of stroke in the story. The story included strong input from a researcher who wrote in an editorial on the study. The story at least mentioned other factors that could be at play – “no single food is consumed in isolation, he points out in his editorial. Olive oil is one part of the Mediterranean diet that has been tied to heart benefits. The diet also boasts plenty of fruits and vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish and moderate amounts of red wine.” Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question. The story attempted to put the new finding into the context of past research on olive oil and the Mediterranean diet. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Olive oil lovers show lower stroke risk

Answer: This story explored the nature of an observational study about the stroke-reducing risks of olive oil. The story appropriately discussed other possible reasons for the findings and why a clinical trial is stronger evidence. With so much news coverage touting an apparent benefit from olive oil in this study (CBS had a headline about “huge decline in stroke risk”), it is refreshing to see so much time and space given to a clear-eyed evaluation of the evidence as this story provided.


Question: Paragraph: The Democrat-led Senate and Assembly voted Thursday to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to cite religious beliefs to forego getting their child the vaccines required for school enrollment. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the measure minutes after the final vote. The law takes effect immediately but will give unvaccinated students up to 30 days after they enter a school to show they’ve had the first dose of each required immunization. With New York’s move, similar exemptions are still allowed in 45 states, though lawmakers in several of them have introduced their own legislation to eliminate the waiver. The issue is hotly contested and debate around it has often been emotional, pitting cries that religious freedom is being curtailed against warnings that public health is being endangered. After the vote in the Assembly, many of those watching from the gallery erupted in cries of “shame!” One woman yelled obscenities down to the lawmakers below. The debate has only intensified with this year’s measles outbreak , which federal officials recently said has surpassed 1,000 illnesses, the highest in 27 years. “I’m not aware of anything in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran or anything else that suggests you should not get vaccinated,” said Bronx Democrat Jeffrey Dinowitz, the bill’s Assembly sponsor. “If you choose to not vaccinate your child, therefore potentially endangering other children ... then you’re the one choosing not to send your children to school.” Hundreds of parents of unvaccinated children gathered at New York’s Capitol for the vote to protest. Stan Yung, a Long Island attorney and father, said his Russian Orthodox religious views and health concerns about vaccines will prevent him from vaccinating his three young children. His family, he said, may consider leaving the state. “People came to this country to get away from exactly this kind of stuff,” Yung said ahead of Thursday’s votes. Supporters of the bill say religious beliefs about vaccines shouldn’t eclipse scientific evidence that they work, noting the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. During the Assembly’s floor debate, supporters brought up scourges of the past that were defeated in the U.S. through vaccines. “I’m old enough to have been around when polio was a real threat,” said Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan. “I believe in science.... Your personal opinions, which may be based on junk science, do not trump the greater good.” Supporters also suggest some parents may be claiming the religious exemption for their children even though their opposition is actually based on scientifically discredited claims about the dangers of vaccines. The bill would not change an existing state exemption given to children who cannot have vaccines for medical reasons, such as a weakened immune system. Cuomo told reporters on Wednesday that he believes public health — and the need to protect those who cannot get vaccinated because for medical reasons — outweighs the concerns about religious freedom. “I understand freedom of religion,” he said. “I have heard the anti-vaxxers’ theory, but I believe both are overwhelmed by the public health risk.” The current measles outbreak has renewed concern about the exemptions in many states. The nation last saw as many cases in 1992, when more than 2,200 were reported. The majority of cases are from outbreaks in New York in Orthodox Jewish communities. California removed personal belief vaccine exemptions for children in both public and private schools in 2015, after a measles outbreak at Disneyland sickened 147 people and spread across the U.S. and into Canada. Maine ended its religious exemption earlier this year. Mississippi and West Virginia also do not allow religious exemptions. Once common in the U.S., measles became rare after vaccination campaigns that started in the 1960s. A decade ago, there were fewer than 100 cases a year. Claim: New York ends religious exemption to vaccine mandates.

Answer:
New York eliminated the religious exemption to vaccine requirements for schoolchildren Thursday, as the nation’s worst measles outbreak in decades prompts states to reconsider giving parents ways to opt out of immunization rules.