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.

[EX 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.
[EX 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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Michigan concluded Wednesday it’s in the public interest to deny the preliminary injunction sought by William Husel. The Columbus-area Mount Carmel Health System fired the intensive care doctor after concluding he ordered excessive painkillers for dozens of patients who died. Husel has pleaded not guilty in the resulting criminal case. His pending lawsuit against Mount Carmel’s parent company, Trinity Health Corporation, and its insurer argues his ability to defend himself is hurt if they won’t cover his legal costs in the criminal case as happened in dozens of related civil cases. The judge concluded the public interest supported denying the preliminary injunction “to protect THC’s Catholic principles on end of life issues, to comport with public policy that liability insurance does not exist to relieve wrongdoers for intentional criminal conduct, and to fulfill the court’s obligation to read the insurance contract by its plain and unambiguous terms.”  A spokeswoman for Mount Carmel said by email that it and Livonia, Michigan-based Trinity Health, are pleased with the decision and focusing on patient care. Husel’s lawyer in the matter called the decision disappointing and accused those health care systems of misleading the public. “Mount Carmel and Trinity both know that Dr. Husel’s care was entirely appropriate and did not cause harm to any patient, and they should be standing up for their employees and defending them against all baseless allegations,” attorney Adam Ford of Ford O’Brien LLP said in an email. In a separate defamation lawsuit against Mount Carmel and Trinity, Husel contends the patients died because of their illnesses, not the drugs he ordered. Claim: Judge won’t compel health system to fund doctor’s defense.
[EX A]: A federal judge declined for now to compel a Michigan-based health system to advance legal costs for a doctor’s defense against murder charges in the deaths of 25 Ohio hospital patients.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Taiwan has been successful at limiting its number of cases thanks to early prevention and a good public health system but it has faced a large rise in recent weeks as people who were infected overseas come to the island. Health Minister Chen Shih-chung said the social distancing steps would require people in public spaces to maintain a 1 meter (3.3 feet) distance between each other outside, and 1.5 meters inside. If this is not possible, for example in busy train stations, then people must make sure they wear face masks, he said. “This is a suggestion, but I think people can do it,” Chen told a news conference. More details would be announced on Wednesday, he added. People have generally been quite good at following virus prevention advice so far but if needed stronger measures can be applied, he said. “As I’ve always said, if a special situation comes about, we can use tough methods, with corresponding punishments.”  Taiwan’s Centres for Disease Control has already been enforcing the distancing rules for reporters at its daily news conference, and masks are widely worn across the country with government-guaranteed supplies. Taiwan has a harsh system of fines for people who are undergoing mandatory 14-day quarantines and who leave their homes without permission. They can be issued fines of up to T$1 million ($33,000). All people returning to Taiwan from overseas now have to complete a compulsory two-week quarantine period. Taiwan has reported 322 cases, including an additional 16 new patients on Tuesday, and five deaths, a far smaller number than many of its neighbors. Claim: Taiwan to push social distancing in coronavirus fight, but no fines yet.
[EX A]:
Taiwan will introduce social distancing measures to help control  the coronavirus but will not yet punish people who fail to comply, the health minister said on Tuesday.