instruction:
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: "As Donald Trump amps up attacks on the Clinton Foundation, Democrats are pointing out that Trump himself has given to the nonprofit he now calls a pay-to-play operation. Recently released emails between Hillary Clinton's aides when she was secretary of state and officials at the Clinton Foundation have demonstrated that some foundation donors did get access to Clinton, though there's no evidence of direct favors. Addressing the topic on NBC's Meet the Press, Barack Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe noted the Clinton Foundation's work on HIV/AIDS and malaria and Trump's own ties to the charity. ""The Clinton Foundation, I think it's a universal agreement, has done remarkable work around the world. I think Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000 to the foundation,"" he said. Plouffe is right that Trump gave at least $100,000 to the foundation, a fact that Trump and his campaign readily admit. One caveat: It appears that the money came through Trump's own foundation, not directly from Trump. The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It's not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump's daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump's gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation's donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. Breaking it down by dollar amount, however, Trump's total contribution isn't that big. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. In 2009, the Trump Foundation gave $926,750 to some 40 organizations (page 18). The Clinton Foundation received one of the largest gifts that year, matched or surpassed only by the Arnold Palmer Medical Center Foundation ($100,000), the New York Presbyterian Hospital ($125,000) and the Police Athletic League ($156,000). Altogether, the Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 according to the nonprofit's tax forms, Forbes found. Trump did not make any personal contributions to his foundations during this time. (Money for the Trump Foundation in these years came from others and from investment income.) Trump doesn't deny that he donated to the Clinton Foundation that he now calls a criminal enterprise. During the first GOP primary debate in August 2015, Trump voluntarily brought up his giving to the Clinton Foundation when asked about his previous donations to Hillary Clinton. ""When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me,"" Trump said. ""With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn't have a choice, because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn't know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world."" For the record, the Clintons did attend Trump's third wedding to Melania Knauss, but that occurred in 2005, four years before the $100,000 donation. A few months later, Trump gave pretty similar answers when he was asked to explain the Forbes article on his charitable giving record in late January. ""I did give to the Clinton Foundation. What I didn't know is they'd be using it for private aircraft and things like that. The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things and I thought it was going to do some good work. So, it didn't make any difference to me,"" he said on Jan. 31's Fox News Sunday. ""Again, I was a businessman and it was my obligation to get along with everybody, including the Clintons, including Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives."" Our ruling Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka's father-in-law) as a contributor. It's important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation. Claim: "David Plouffe Says ""Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000"" to the Clinton Foundation."
answer:
"Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka's father-in-law) as a contributor. It's important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation."

question:
Paragraph: The story clearly points out that brain scans and biomarker tests are not ready for clinical use. Since there are no recommended changes that directly affect readers today, and since it is not known which diagnostic tests may eventually prove useful, it is reasonable to put off discussions of cost. As noted above, the story points out that brain scans and biomarker tests for early signs of Alzheimer's disease are currently useful to researchers, not doctors in routine clinical practice. The story also reports that, "Current treatments do not alter the course of Alzheimer's, they just ease symptoms," thus limiting the benefit of early diagnosis. However, as we mentioned in the section on harms, the story would have been better if it offered more context with the comments of one expert who said that early diagnosis can help patients and families cope with the disease. Since the story reports that the diagnostic tests for Alzheimer's are not ready for clinical use and it points out that diagnosis is of limited value now because the available treatments are only able to ease some symptoms in some patients, not treat the underlying disease, we understand why discussion of potential harms is deferred. However, the story does include comments about perceived benefits of early diagnosis for patients and families. It would have been nice to see comments about why people might reasonably choose to defer diagnosis because of the psychological and social effects of being defined as an Alzheimer's patient when there may be no medical benefit to early diagnosis. This story is careful to point out the limitations of the brain scans, spinal fluid tests and other diagnostic tools being explored by researchers. It summarizes some of the key challenges that researchers need to address before trying to use scans or lab tests to diagnose patients in routine clinical practice. The story specifies the estimated size of the patient population: "About 5.4 million Americans and more than 26 million people worldwide have Alzheimer's, the most common form of dementia." It does not exaggerate the relevant population. This story summarizes the point of view of the panel of experts that developed these new guidelines for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease. However, it does not tell readers whether there are dissenting opinions. More importantly, the story fails to report relationships between some of the quoted experts and pharmaceutical or testing companies. For example, the disclosure statements with the journal articles announcing the guidelines state that "Marilyn Albert serves as a consultant to Genentech and Eli Lilly and receives grants to her institution from GE Healthcare" and "Guy McKhann serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Merck." Readers should have been alerted to these industry ties. The story implicitly recognizes the option of foregoing testing by listing the limitations and uncertainties of not only experimental scans and lab tests, but also the limited utility of clinical diagnosis given the lack of effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease. The story alerts readers to not expect immediate changes in how doctors diagnose patients with signs of dementia: "Yet the guidelines do not advise doctors to change how they evaluate and treat patients now. Despite the hoopla about new brain scans and blood and spinal fluid tests that claim to show early signs of Alzheimer's, they are not ready for prime time and should remain just tools for research, the guidelines say." The story distinguishes between experimental diagnostic tools and the clinical features of dementia that doctors can use today when trying to determine whether a patient's symptoms indicate Alzheimer's or some other neurologic disease or injury. The story explains to readers key differences between the new guidelines and those released in 1984. It notes that the scans and lab tests that have been developed in recent years are useful to researchers trying to understand Alzheimer's disease, especially early in the disease process, and the effects of experimental treatments. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: New guidelines define pre-Alzheimer's disease
answer:
This report tells readers the stark reality, that lab tests and brain scans for Alzheimer's are not ready for clinical use and even when the tests are validated, they will have limited value to patients until effective treatments are developed. This story includes a comment about how early diagnosis could help patients and families plan for the future; but it would have been nice to see an acknowledgment of the potential psychological and social consequences. Like the NPR story, this report fails to tell readers about the ties between quoted experts and companies that are developing tests and treatments, even though those ties were disclosed. This story quoted several experts, but none who are independent of the panel that issued the revised diagnosis guidance. It is more than just validation of the new diagnostic approaches being described that will be needed before these can influence clinical practice. All of the diagnostic test characteristics will need to be examined, including the ability of the test results to accurately predict which patients are likely to develop AD (the false positive, false negative, positive and negative predictive value, etc). Additionally, the reliability of the measures will need to be determined. From a clinical perspective, until there are treatments that can alter progression, other than helping patients understand what to expect in the future, currently there is not a lot of benefit and there are potential harms for knowing early on if a patient has this condition.