Would you rather: be alive, but in so much pain that you cannot function, or die and put an end to all your suffering? Jeffrey Weiss believes that death is the better option, arguing that although human life is valuable, no one deserves to suffer through prolonged pain when no cure is available. He argues in favor of assisted suicide, attempting to convince the readers of USA Today, both liberals and conservatives, that people suffering from chronic illnesses should have the right to die. He strengthens his claim by using religious appeals, a personal anecdote, and cited facts, creating an overall logical tone. Weiss believes that any patient suffering from a life-threatening illness should have the option to undergo assisted suicide if they so choose. He immediately identifies his relationship to the issue, as he himself has brain cancer. Treatment has been offered to him, with few side effects and “significant” benefits. By using this relatively neutral word, Weiss emphasizes his apathy towards treating his cancer. He then expands on this claim by contrasting his two long sentences with a short one: “But it ain’t a cure.” This short sentence places an emphasis on what he truly wants from treatment: a cure. However, no cure …show more content…
He uses quotes from Frank Pavone, a priest, and the Vatican, both arguing against Ms. Schiavo’s assisted suicide. By doing this, he establishes his credibility, both by identifying the counter-argument and also by using credible sources. However, he then counters it, using a rhetorical question. “Based on that, I should go for every treatment I can get, yes?” He again ties it back to himself, making it much more personal to him. It seems like he might be considering their opinions, that it is heartless and cruel to take a life, yet he immediately states that he does not have that in mind. He would rather have a short life, with minimal pain, than a lengthy life with enormous
These stories bounced around a little. He told about how little he knew of his grandfather’s death then to his father’s death then his diagnosis then about his journalism days and back to his father and how he would have helped in the assisted death if he was allowed the choice. It jumps from one point then another which could confuse the reader a little, as it did with me. However, the structure of his argument was consistent. He would list an opposing statement then give data that disproves it and strengthens his own argument. Once listing the supporting facts he purposed a suggested solution that would allow a better and more regulated way to allow patient and families to make the decision to seek a doctor for assisted death. Terry even took it a step farther and gave the guideline for the solution to be successful. It seems as if he uses this tactic of listing an opposing thought and then gives a fact supporting his argument instead allows him to pick apart the flaws to the audience to make the opposing arguments seem weak in
Barbra Huttmann’s purpose in writing her story in A Crime of Compassion is to convince people that no matter their beliefs, it is sometimes more humane to let someone die if they are suffering. This was the case with a cancer patient of hers named Mac. She communicates this directly by saying, “Until there is legislation making it a criminal act to code a patient has requested the right to die, we will all of us risk of the same face as Mac” (Huttmann 422).
The second audience that May is appealing to are conservative Christians, who are distinctively pro-life. As his article was originally published in well-circulated The Christian Century magazine, addressing this audience exposes members of May's audience who are unfamiliar with euthanasia to its technicalities by debating morality. His tone is similar to that of a sermon; instead of utilizing scientific facts or statistics, May chooses to exclude a logos appeal in favor of an ethos objective. He preaches on moral values about life and death, mentioning that “the best death is not always the sudden death” (May 662). According to May, preparation...
...ow point drives him to consider death as an alternative to suffering. This chapter helps to highlight some present day themes about the ethical issues of euthanasia such as the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Also whether or not a medical professional should assist in the process and under what circumstances. Discussion about euthanasia will probably continue in the future. This character brings some of the issues to light.
1. What is the difference between a. and a. The slippery slope argument for assisted suicide is a straightforward one to see and prove. In essence, it says that if assisted suicide is allowed without any principled lines or divisions, then we must allow for assisted suicide in cases like that of “a sixteen-year-old suffering from a severe case of unrequited love.” First we must acknowledge the assumption that the Supreme Court has made, which is, there are no principled lines they can draw between the different cases of assisted suicide.
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why do we need to ask for consent? " He is just explaining that if we are allowed to kill someone legally through rationalization of the law, eventually we will find a way to rationalize murder too.
... abortion in several ways. First off, he is in favor of euthanasia, he believes that a terminally ill patient should not have to suffer or endure more pain if there is no pleasure in that person’s life and their future holds nothing but suffering. Marquis states that although the victim may believe that their life is valuable to them and the thought of death is frightening, their future does not hold anything of value and will only bring them further pain and suffering. Although he says that euthanasia is not immoral, his stance on abortion still fits with his stance on euthanasia. On the topic of euthanasia, if the patient is thinking rationally, he believes the victim should not have to suffer if their future holds no further value. Therefore, his theories and ideas still apply to each idea while simultaneously ensuring they do not conflict with one another.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The act of euthanasia may be justifiable, in that it gives those in pain an escape from their lives, however, it places a lot of power in the patient’s healthcare provider. Medical professionals are more pessimistic in patients’ diagnosis and rate their live value lower than it actually is (Pawlick and DiLascio 2). The negative diagnosis of these medical practitioners makes the patient feel especially drawn to euthanasia as a solution for the problem they may possess. Furthermore, the legalization of euthanasia would “cause society to devalue all life,” in that it makes everyone, not just patients, feel that euthanizing those who have medical issues is a better way to fix problems within our society, rather than treating them (Wekesser 64). Those against legalization say that the open availability for someone to end their life could lead to people feeling “more driven toward, or even forced” to be euthanized due to their emotional, rather than physical, pain (Lee and Stingl 1). During times of hardship such as a terminal illness, one often feels that their life is decreasing in value under the circumstances of the effective suffering their situation causes to the family and loves ones around them. It is therefore easier to end their life in a way that puts ease on the family and loved ones, in a
Two patients share a hospital room. By miraculous circumstance, they are both suffering identical cases of late stage terminal cancer, and both have expressed firmly that they don’t want their lives to be artificially extended. Patient A has contracted a hospital-borne infection, and will die quickly if this infection is not treated. This being the case, the doctors decide to take no action, allowing Patient A to die from the infection. This raises the question: what does this choice imply for Patient B? Should he be allowed to choose active euthanasia to combat his suffering? I will argue that there is no moral distinction between letting Patient A die and “killing” Patient B. I will do so by looking at each patient’s circumstances individually, then applying arguments about euthanasia to their cases, and ultimately bringing them back together to consider a verdict. While some may argue that there is a difference between killing Patient B and letting Patient A die, I assert that any such claims are based in irrelevant reasoning.
On the other hand, the proposition has previously argued that Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe It is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our lives to God and to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer, then we must obey. his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because