Below please see requirements for my assignment for Argumentative Essay for "Critical Thinking and Writing Class"
Essay Type: Argumentative Essay with Logical Analysis ( 1500 - 2000 words )
a) Begins with at least one well developed paragraph explaining the subject in detail and in an objective tone.
b) Includes a thesis paragraph providing the reader with a plan for the essay
a. Explains early in the essay and in detail at least one prominent argument of the opposition
b. Effectively represents and refutes all of the opposition''s arguments, thereby avoiding the STRAW MAN fallacy
c. Never seems to be merely stating an opinion, but supports all assertions and conclusions with explicit reference to all relevant data and /or expert opinion
d. In place of source notes uses explicit references and attributions such as "according to the president of Johns Hopkins, as quoted in the TIMES..."
e. Maintains an objective tone throughout ; never appears to be antagonistic or closed minded
f. Effectively uses definitions of key terms, such as "reverse discrimination" as a method of advancing argument
g. Incorporates into the essay logical analysis of a written piece or passage ( current newspaper article or other passage a copy of which I will need to bring to class) of about 200 words. Append the piece to the essay - or let me know which passage uses Toulmin''s logic so I can submit it separately.
1. concepts of common fallacy are effectively employed
2. Toulmin''s logic is effectively employed
Topic: Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide.
Important: Requirement "g" (see above) toulomin''s logic analysis passage of current article.
Just in case you are not familiar with Toulmin''s logic, here is a passage from my book:
" Along with Aristotelian logic there is another kind of logic formulated by British philosopher and logician stephen Toulmin. This model,discussed in his An Intruduction to Reasoning (1979) is besed on Toulmin''s observation htat all successful arguments are comprised of six parts: a claim, the grounds , a warrant, backing, qualifiers and rebuttals.
The CLAIM, like the conclusion is a syllogism, is the argumentthat someone is trying to prove. The claim is the thesis statement or controlling idea of the paper. The GROUNDS are the support or the proof to support the claim. Without grounds your readers have no reason to beleive your claim. The WARRANT, according to Toulmin, is "how you get from your grounds to your claim." Often an obvous assumption, the warrant explains why the grounds support that claim. BACKING substantiates your warrant, showing the reasons why the warrant is valid.Because writers should avoid making generalizations that discredit their arguments, QUALIFIERS limit your claim to make it more plausible. Finally, REBUTTALS consider specific instances not accounted for in the QUALIFIERS; they are the equivalent of "defensive" writing.
Here is an example of Toulmin''s model of argument:
CLAIM: The Lion King is a good movie for children to see.
GROUNDS: It appeals to their imagination
WARRANT: Good movies encourage children to use thair imagination
BACKING: Cognitive psychlogists believe that promoting children''s imagination is important in children''s development
QUALIFIER: Since most children enjoy situation that promote imagination
REBUTTAL: Unless children are not old enough to understeand the dufference between reality and pretending.
Other: I just finished a Research Paper on Debate over Physician Assisted Suicide. I will attach my Research paper to the bottom of this e-mail and it can be used as a base for this argumentative paper ( i would prefer that you use some of it in the argumentative essay so it could look like i wrote it)
If any other quotations or sources are used they need to be included in "Works Cited" Page
Paper should be done in MLA Format.
Please call me if you have ANY questions or need additional information (714) 743-3442 or you can reach me at work (949) 672-2282.
My Research Paper ( note my argumentative essay can be based on this info)
English 1 B
March 20, 2002
The Moral Tug of War Over Physician Assisted Suicide: Ethics vs Individual Rights
Today medical technology is so advanced that it is able to duplicate functions of the human organs allowing the patients to stay alive longer than ever before. These great advancements in technology did not come without a price. While terminally ill patients are able to live longer many of them spend their last moments in suffering, unable to experience quality of life and unable to focus their last moments on anything else but pain. In fear of tremendous pain and preserving once autonomy, individuals are looking into updating their living wills with wishes of refusing life support and advanced treatments? a practice called passive euthanasia. In attempts to provide individuals with more control over their destiny, according to the data gathered from the official website from Religious Tolerance Organization published by Bruce Robinson, one state (Oregon) has passed, and other states (Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New York state and Washington state) are considering legislation that will provide a right to end life for the terminally ill. However, legislating issues that involve religion, moral and medical ethics is tremendously difficult even in the most democratic society in the world.
For those who are not familiar with a term ?physician assisted suicide?, it is a form of active euthanasia where physician prescribes a lethal dose of drugs to a mentally sound but terminally ill patient who wishes to voluntarily end his or her life. Controversy begins with identifying who is to be considered mentally sound, terminally ill, and the whole concept of doctors acting as executioners. Many argue that palliative care which offers terminally ill patients? comfort through the prescription of painkillers, such as morphine and opium is sufficient, and should be viewed as a morally acceptable alternative to physician assisted suicide.
First, let?s examine one part of the Country were tremendous efforts were made to legalize physician assisted suicide. In ?Oregon Law and Controlled Substances Act? statement, Attorney General Janet Reno talks about controversial Death with Dignity Act approved by Oregon voters making Oregon the fist state to allow physician assisted suicide. Even though Death with Dignity Act was approved in 1994, Congress battled to override legalizing physician assisted suicide on the basis of violating Federal Controlled Substances Act passed in order to ?provide criminal penalties for physicians who dispense controlled substances beyond the course of professional practice? (262).
Attorney General Janet Reno ruled in favor of the Oregon State interpreting Controlled Substances Act was intended to regulate drugs used to achieve ?stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system ? which were not relevant to the drugs used in physician assisted suicide. Death with Dignity Act finally became active in October 1997 safeguarded by strict regulations in order to prevent possible misuse. Reno agrees with strict guidelines posed on physician assisted suicide procedure, which calls for:
? patient?s competence and the voluntaries of the request be documented in writing and confirmed by two witnesses, that the request be confirmed by a second physician, and that the physician and patient observe certain waiting periods . Once request has been properly documented and the required waiting periods have expired, the patient?s physician may prescribe, but not administer, medications to enable the patient to take his or her own life. (262)
The debate never relented even after the Attorney General?s ruling reversing Federal decision to apply Controlled Substances Act in order to override legalization of physician assisted suicide in Oregon. According to the House Committee Report presented in Congressional Digest, Federal Government responded its opposition to physician-assisted suicide by introducing Lethal Drug Prevention Act:
? after a vote of 398 to 16 in the House and unanimous vote in the Senate , the President signed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction act of 1997 on April 30, 1997 which insured no Federal funds could ever be used to cause a patient?s death. Indeed, President Clinton, in signing the bill said it ?will allow the Federal government to speak with a clear voice in opposing these practices,? and warned ?to endorse assisted suicide would set us on a disturbing and perhaps dangerous path.? (263)
What Clinton was implying is a view shared by many Americans that allowing physician- assisted suicide will lead to abuses. There is a general fear that if physician assisted suicide becomes accepted it might be misused by individuals who are not terminally ill and those who are suffering from depression. This brings up a concept that there is always a chance a patient may be misdiagnosed with a terminal illness which will allow them to seek physician assisted suicide out of depression or panic. Daniel Callahan, author of the article ?Good Strategies and Bad: Opposing physician-assisted suicide ? predicts that ?? social legitimization of suicide is a way of dealing with the suffering and sorrows of life? might set a trend for people suffering of depression to seek the easy way out. Callahan also critiques Oregon law of being too broad and ??allowing people to shop around for permissive physicians?.
Despite strong opposition from Federal Government, passing Lethal Drug Prevention Act was not enough to stop physicians from what some of them thought was a part of their job. In Article written by Richard Worsnop ?Caring for the Dying?, he writes that:
In the eyes of the state?s [Oregon] popular Democratic Governor, former emergency room physician John Ditzhaber, the answer is also simple: ? I believe an individual should have control, should be able to make choices
about the end of their life? As a physician, I can tell you that there?s a clear difference between prolonging someone?s life and prolonging their death.? (771)
According to New York Times article titled ?As Suicide Approvals Rise In Oregon, Half Go Unused? published in February 2002, Journalist Sam Verhovek describes a trend of increased number of patients that received physician assisted suicide. Verhovek?s article points out an interesting trend ?out 44 patients who received lethal medications last year only 21 people actually ended up using lethal medication to end their lives?. Based on this statistic, it seems like it is the freedom
is the main goal of those that the support physician assisted suicide.
Another interesting trend is described in article ?I Should Die the Way I want to ? published in The Washington Post on January 1, 2002 written by Susan Okie. This article highlighted the fact that the most common reason for assisted suicide was to preserve once autonomy. A survey of physicians that participated in prescribing lethal drugs to terminally ill patients has a quote that best describers the personality of the patients:
?Oregonians who used the law to obtain lethal prescriptions have tended to be highly educated, well insured and as likely to be married as those who died naturally of similar diseases. They place a high value on control and independence. Compromise is not in their vocabulary?Nobody who knows them is surprised by the request.?
Cited in the same article poses valid arguments against physician assisted suicide and promoting options of substituting it with improvement in pain management and palliative care. After all, the main goal of palliative or hospice care is to minimize pain symptoms and make the final moments of the terminally ill patients as comfortable as possible, with increased focus on pain management and counseling. Susan Okie mentions that her survey also shows ?Oregon physicians who had cared for at least one dying patient in the previous year reported they had made efforts to improve their knowledge of pain treatment for such patients.?
The AMA?s House of Delegates, which has long opposed to physician assisted suicide, agreed to increase their efforts in training doctors in the ways of pain management and in supporting the needs of dying patients. Included in this renewed effort was a list of eight principles intended in helping physicians and health-care facilities in dealing with patients nearing death. These principles were listed on an article titled ?AMA Guidelines for Caring for Patients in the Last Phase of Life?:
1. The opportunity to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.
2. Trustworthy assurance that physical and mental suffering will be carefully attended to and comfort measures intently secured.
3. Trustworthy assurance that preferences for withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining intervention will be honored.
4. Trustworthy assurance that there will be no abandonment by the physician.
5. Trustworthy assurance that dignity will be a priority.
6. Trustworthy assurance that burden to family and others will be minimized.
7. Attention to the personal goals of the dying person.
8. Trustworthy assurance that care providers will assist the bereaved through early stages of mourning and adjustment. (774)
Such original approach shows increased commitment from physicians on not only minimizing pain but also improving overall trust and relationship between patient and physician. Tending to the drying?s personal goals helps minimize the focus on their disease and pain and revert some of their energy on accomplishing some of their goals and aspirations. Furthermore, there is now emphasis in helping their families cope during the final days and after the death of their beloved.
Contained above are the arguments for and against the legalization of physician assisted suicide, as well as where State and Federal Governments stand in respect of this most delicate of issues. It is now year 2002 and the debate of physician-assisted suicide remains strong as ever. A democratic government, the US Constitution and the freedom
it provides makes it possible for its citizens to write new laws and allow amendments to existing ones. This given right allows the people of this country to revise and update its governing laws to keep up with changes in moral beliefs, culture, and the ever changing lifestyles due to social and economical changes, as well as technological advances in every aspect of living imaginable, including advances in medicine and care for terminally ill patients. Making physician suicide legal in America has touched many people especially since many of us have met terminally ill people or have the thought of someday being faced with having such debilitating disease personally or somebody within our own family circle. Americans are intent on maintaining their freedom
so hardly fought for by their ancestors and to this day; even the terminally ill are fighting to preserve their freedom
and empowering others to help keep it alive and strong. The debate over physician assisted suicide has become more over issues like freedom
, separation of church and state, and keeping the Federal Government from intervening on State matters rather than on the actual use drugs to end ones life. As mentioned in Sam Verhovek?s article above, only about half of suicide drugs prescribed in the year 2000 were actually used.
Both sides on this issue present valid points in support of their views. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide bring up issues of persons right to choose death with dignity and to avoid spending their final moments in excruciating pain. Preserving one?s autonomy has become a major key point by supporters of physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, it has enraged many Americans about the unwarranted interventions by the Federal Government on laws put forth by individual states.
Opponents of the physician-assisted suicide argue that prescribing lethal drugs to terminally ill patients goes against the bylaws and ethics of practice of medicine. The AMA and its partners would like to put the focus back on what they consider the essence of practicing medicine, that is finding cure and improving the ways of managing pain, specially for terminally ill patients. Today, pain management and improvement in palliative care is receiving much needed focus and concerted support from the medical industry. In addition to improving care and comfort to patients in their final hours, extended assistance is now being offered to their families to help cope with this very sensitive situation. Finally, opponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that legalization of such a law makes room for possible abuse and misuse of drugs causing unjust death.
Callahan, Daniel, ?Good Strategies and Bad: Opposing physician-assisted suicide?
Commonweal, December 3 1999, sec1. 7+.
Cassel, Christine K. ?AMA Guidelines for Caring for Patients in the Last Phase of Life.?
CQ Researcher 7 (1997): 774.
Orric, Sarah. ?House Judiciary Committee Rationale.? Congressional Digest 77 (1998); 263-264.
Okie, Susan ?I Should Die the Way I Want To? The Washington Post; Washington, D.C.; Jan 1,
Reno, Janet. ?Oregon Law and the CSA.? Congressional Digest 77 (1998); 262.
Robinson, Bruce A., ?Physician Assisted Suicide: Activity in States other than Oregon?, Mar.
Worsnop, Richard L. ?Caring for the Dying.? CQ Researcher 7 (1997): 769-792
[ Order Custom Essay ]
[ View Full Essay ]