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.
One example is below.
Q: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
A: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Rationale: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
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.