Doctor-Assisted Suicide: Article Analysis
Life is a frail and fragile thing. Each of us considers it to be our most valuable possession given to us from a higher power. Some take it for granted, while some preserve and celebrate it. In a moment’s notice the breath of life can be taken without consent. I was presented with a piece of editorial, to discuss and decipher its contents. I will present my thoughts and answer the questions posted in the editorial.
1. The major claim of this editorial, is that legalized doctor-assisted suicide is euthanasia. We are asking for the right to decide though the court system, if an individual’s life is valuable or not. Some may claim we are just hiding or heartless nature and corrupt moral standards to justify our actions.
2. The author defines doctor-assisted …show more content…
It is difficult for me to deduce if there are any informal fallacies in this editorial. My point of view on this topic is bias. I would say that “6’ and “10” is an informal fallacy. It does not support the editorial. It is not supporting evidence but, merely an opinion rooted in emotion.
6. The author convinced me of his position. He provides evidence on the direction of healthcare, spirituality, morality and human behavior. We should not appoint or seek legal authority to have doctors play god. In my opinion, having a doctor perform such a task will eventually break his psyche. He or she might find it easier to convince love ones to pursue death as the final choice. Doctors are supposed to be caretakers and healers, not the Grim Reaper. The question I would ask myself and others would be, “Why must he or she be burdened with the sins of another and answer to god for the choice we make.”
7. One problems I find with the editorial was the idea to predict future outcome. Although there is evidence that suggest a possible outcome, it does not mean that it will occur in an unknown future. Point “9” is invalid because we do condone the killing of the unborn. One major flaw I found in the editorial was citation. There aren’t any. I cannot tell if it was fabricated to convince a group of
1. The major claim of this editorial, is that legalized doctor-assisted suicide is euthanasia. We are asking for the right to decide though the court system, if an individual’s life is valuable or not. Some may claim we are just hiding or heartless nature and corrupt moral standards to justify our actions.
2. The author defines doctor-assisted …show more content…
It is difficult for me to deduce if there are any informal fallacies in this editorial. My point of view on this topic is bias. I would say that “6’ and “10” is an informal fallacy. It does not support the editorial. It is not supporting evidence but, merely an opinion rooted in emotion.
6. The author convinced me of his position. He provides evidence on the direction of healthcare, spirituality, morality and human behavior. We should not appoint or seek legal authority to have doctors play god. In my opinion, having a doctor perform such a task will eventually break his psyche. He or she might find it easier to convince love ones to pursue death as the final choice. Doctors are supposed to be caretakers and healers, not the Grim Reaper. The question I would ask myself and others would be, “Why must he or she be burdened with the sins of another and answer to god for the choice we make.”
7. One problems I find with the editorial was the idea to predict future outcome. Although there is evidence that suggest a possible outcome, it does not mean that it will occur in an unknown future. Point “9” is invalid because we do condone the killing of the unborn. One major flaw I found in the editorial was citation. There aren’t any. I cannot tell if it was fabricated to convince a group of