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.

[Q]: 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.
[A]: 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.


[Q]: Paragraph: In February 2018, the web site Newsner, which produces viral content, recounted the horrifying story of the death of Katie Flynn, a seven-year-old girl who was decapitated in a devastating car crash on Long Island, New York, in 2005. We received several enquiries about the veracity of the article, and a similar one published by Trending Stylist, on 28 February. Unfortunately, it’s true. In the early hours of 3 July 2005, a drunk driver traveling at 70 miles per hour the wrong way down a highway crashed into a limousine carrying several members of Katie’s family, who were returning home after a wedding. The collision caused the instant deaths of the limousine’s driver, 59-year-old Stanley Rabinowitz and seven-year-old Katie Flynn, a niece of the bride. Other passengers suffered serious injuries, including Chris Tangney, the father of the bride, whose leg was broken so badly in the crash that it had to be amputated. As CNN reported in 2008: An off-duty security officer returning home from work was first on the scene. “I approached the limo driver, and I guess I went into shock,” says New York State court officer Michael Lerardi. “It looked like an explosion. The motor, basically, was just sitting on top of him. I knew he was dead.” The limo driver, 59-year-old Stanley Rabinowitz, was killed instantly. Next to arrive was Lt. Michael Tangney, the bride’s uncle, who had attended the wedding just hours before. “I was walking to the rear of the limousine when a gentleman was coming away from it, and he said, ‘Don’t go back there. It’s bad,'” Lt. Tangney says. “I opened the rear door to the limousine and realized it was my family.” Lt. Tangney’s brother — Jennifer’s father, Chris — was lying on the floor, his legs wrapped around the service bar, broken in numerous places. The rest of the family was piled on top of each other. Jennifer’s mother, Denise, was severely injured, as was Jennifer’s husband, Neil, who tried to crawl out of the limo to get help despite his broken back. Five-year-old Grace was also trapped inside the wreckage. Jennifer, whose foot was injured, managed to climb out and was searching for Katie, who had been lying on the side seat before the crash. “We couldn’t find Kate,” Lt. Tangney says. Then, Jennifer made a devastating discovery — Katie had been decapitated by her seat belt. “Then all of a sudden Mrs. Flynn came out of the car with her child’s head in her hand,” says Michael Lerardi, one of the 70 paramedics and police officers who were called to the scene. “I got numb. I thought I was going to collapse,” says Officer Christopher Pandolfo. “I looked into the back of the limousine, and I saw Katie’s remains. She was wearing this dress, and I just started shaking.” This fact check includes links to court testimony that some readers might find disturbing. In February 2007, New York Supreme Court Justice Alan Honorof sentenced  25-year-old Martin Heidgen to a minimum of 18 years in prison on two counts of second-degree “depraved indifference” murder, and related charges. Heidgen had been drinking for several hours in Manhattan and Nassau County, before he drove his pick-up truck into the limousine. At the trial, there was some dispute over whether Katie Flynn had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision. Dr Michael DeMartino, who conducted Flynn’s autopsy, testified under cross-examination from the defense that his autopsy report had described her as a “rear seat unrestrained passenger,” based on preliminary information provided to DeMartino by some first responders. However, DeMartino agreed with the prosecution that Flynn’s injuries were “consistent with a child who had been lap belted and was lying down on a bench seat and thrown forward during the high-speed crash,” but also said that the injuries “might be” consistent with the girl not wearing a seat belt. Ultimately, DeMartino appeared to lean heavily toward the likelihood that Flynn had been wearing a seat belt at the time of her death, and that the seat belt getting caught around her neck may have led directly to the terrible manner of her death. He noted that had she not been wearing a seat belt, it would have been reasonable to expect much more severe injuries to the rest of her body than were actually observed, namely “very small bruising” to her left knee and elbow and some bruising on her left hand. Furthermore, the family of Katie Flynn, who were present in the limousine with her that night, adamantly insisted that she was wearing a seat belt. At the trial, Jennifer Flynn — Katie’s mother, and the sister of the bride — testified that her husband Neil had placed Katie on a bench seat in the limousine, and “seat belted her in” while she was sleeping. Chris Tangney — a retired Nassau County police officer, father of the bride, and grandfather of Katie Flynn — similarly testified that the girl had been lying down, asleep, on a bench seat in the limousine, with her seat belt buckled, at the time of the collision. In a devastating and scathing victim impact statement read out to the court, Jennifer Flynn said: Drunk driving continues because people aren’t afraid not to. Punishments are not that big of a deal. They are not severe enough because society doesn’t view it as the crime it should… Katie’s head was severed from her body. The entire front end was embedded in Stanley Rabinowitz. To clean it up and water it down so it’s more palatable for the papers and the news, the jury and the defendant is wrong. In 2010, Jennifer and Neil Flynn took part in an anti-drunk driving campaign in New York state, describing the terrible impact of Katie’s death. Claim: Katie Flynn was decapitated while wearing a seat belt, in a 2005 car crash on Long Island, New York.
[A]: A website that publishes viral content accurately recounts the terrible story of Katie Flynn's death in 2005.


[Q]: Paragraph: Anti-smoking groups hailed the ban, which restricts sale and consumption of flavored vaping products immediately and does the same for menthol cigarettes starting June 1, 2020. “The Massachusetts law is a major milestone in the fight to reverse the worsening e-cigarette epidemic and stop tobacco companies from targeting and addicting kids with flavored products,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, which opposed the legislation, said it’s exploring challenging the new law in court, or seeking other ways to change it. “Public health and safety has been dealt a blow by anti-tobacco crusaders exploiting a youth vaping crisis, and by lawmakers bypassing prudent policy-making,” the group said in a statement. In recent months, Massachusetts and other states, including Michigan, Montana, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington, have temporarily banned or restricted the sale of vaping products. But Massachusetts is now the first with a broad, permanent ban in place on all flavored tobacco or nicotine vaping products, anti-smoking groups say. The new law specifically restricts sale of the products to licensed smoking bars such as cigar bars and hookah lounges, where they’ll only be allowed to be consumed on-site. The restriction extends to menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco. It also places a 75% excise tax on nicotine vaping products, gives public health officials new authority to regulate the products and requires health insurers cover tobacco cessation counseling. Baker said he hopes other states adopt similar restrictions but argued that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are the only ones that can address the issue comprehensively for the nation. “Sometimes someone has to go first,” he said. “It’s pretty clear there isn’t going to be a federal policy on this anytime soon. So, in the absence of that, we had to act.” President Donald Trump has promised for months to approve a national ban on most flavored e-cigarettes. But in recent weeks his administration has walked back that promise, cancelling a planned announcement of a ban in favor of private meetings with the vaping industry and medical professionals. Massachusetts’ decision to extend the ban to menthols is unique. The mint flavor has typically been exempt from such restrictions because it’s long been one of the most popular flavors. Menthols were omitted from legislation passed by the New York City Council on Tuesday after advocates, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, argued their inclusion could lead to harsh police enforcement in the black community. Studies have shown menthol cigarettes are consumed disproportionately by young people and minorities, and anti-tobacco groups and health experts have argued menthol has been marketed to African Americans. But there have been recent signs that reluctance to address menthols is waning. Boston health officials earlier this week prohibited the sale of menthols in convenience stores, and dozens of other communities in Massachusetts and California have taken steps to restrict menthols and other flavored cigarettes. State Attorney General Maura Healey and other supporters said that restricting menthols and other flavored tobacco products is critical because they’ve contributed to growth in the traditional smoking market, which in turn prompted the creation of flavored vaping products targeted at youths. The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network said it hoped the new law sends a message to the industry. “More than 80% of teens who have ever used a tobacco product started with a flavored product, and the tobacco industry knows this,” the organization said in an emailed statement. The legislation responds to growing concern about the health effects of vaping products, including deaths whose exact cause is still being investigated. Massachusetts health officials say there have been more than 200 suspected cases of vaping-related lung injury and three confirmed deaths in the state. In September, Baker declared a public health emergency and ordered a temporary ban on the sale of all vaping products — flavored and unflavored. Baker said Wednesday he’ll lift that ban a few weeks early on Dec. 11, when state health officials are expected to roll out additional regulations. The Tobacco Merchants Association, an industry group, didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. But the Vapor Technology Association, which has challenged Massachusetts’ temporary vaping ban in state court, said a better strategy than the ban would be raising the age to purchase tobacco and nicotine vapor products to 21 and to impose stricter marketing standards on companies. “A ban will drive people back to combustible cigarettes, the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the U.S., or lead to illegal sales with a new and larger black market,” the organization said in a statement. __ Associated Press editor William J. Kole contributed to this report. Claim: No more menthol cigarettes: New ban on tobacco, vape flavors.
[A]:
Massachusetts became the first state to ban flavored tobacco and nicotine vaping products, including menthol cigarettes, after Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law on Wednesday a bill that’s meant to reduce the appeal of the products to young people amid a rash of illnesses and deaths linked to vaping.