http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/557/debating-voluntary-human-adult-euthanasia
Jeremy Wilson discussed the issue of legalizing euthanasia. Also known as mercy killing, or assisted suicide, Euthanasia is the assistance of ending ones life when they are unwell. To receive a better understanding Jeremy expresses the reasoning of both sides of the argument. One being that euthanasia should be legalized because people, not the government, should have the right to choose when and how they die. The second reasoning is to keep it illegal so that doctors/practitioners do not use it to their advantage, to obtain more money, or just to keep “knocking more people off” without the worries of government weighing on their shoulders. The article would be of interest to anyone who is debating whether or not euthanasia should or shouldn't be legalized in their state. It entails many interesting facts and details about euthanasia such as laws, and government policies. By showing multiple views of the argument he emphasizes that the best way to solve the problem of euthanasia is to let the patient decide for herself or himself depending on their predicament. To do otherwise, such as to make a person suffer for an extended period of time until their day comes, seems immoral and vicious. To verify and support his findings he uses reports and documents from experts on the subject, such as “Sandstock”, “Legal Status”, “Hentoff”, “Death with Dignity”, and more. However, Jeremy does veer off subject in paragraph five of the essay; he expresses his confusion of why euthanasia is being debated more than abortion. He expresses that there should be more talk of eliminating abortion rather than debating euthanasia, which happens 200 times less than abortion does. Transitions from one paragraph to the next could be improved also. Jeremy tends to jump from one topic to another then back again, making it confusing for the readers to follow. He used a simple form of diction which made it easy for readers to comprehend his writing, and if a complicated word was utilized he made sure to define what it meant afterwards in parenthesis. When discussing the spiritual and moral aspect of the argument he implemented stories and backgrounds of certain areas and cultures, to express why different parts of the country want different things. In closing, Jeremy seemed to be very well rounded in his debate on euthanasia. He appeared to have left little out, and the only improvement I see needed is his construction and order of paragraphs.
Jeremy Wilson discussed the issue of legalizing euthanasia. Also known as mercy killing, or assisted suicide, Euthanasia is the assistance of ending ones life when they are unwell. To receive a better understanding Jeremy expresses the reasoning of both sides of the argument. One being that euthanasia should be legalized because people, not the government, should have the right to choose when and how they die. The second reasoning is to keep it illegal so that doctors/practitioners do not use it to their advantage, to obtain more money, or just to keep “knocking more people off” without the worries of government weighing on their shoulders. The article would be of interest to anyone who is debating whether or not euthanasia should or shouldn't be legalized in their state. It entails many interesting facts and details about euthanasia such as laws, and government policies. By showing multiple views of the argument he emphasizes that the best way to solve the problem of euthanasia is to let the patient decide for herself or himself depending on their predicament. To do otherwise, such as to make a person suffer for an extended period of time until their day comes, seems immoral and vicious. To verify and support his findings he uses reports and documents from experts on the subject, such as “Sandstock”, “Legal Status”, “Hentoff”, “Death with Dignity”, and more. However, Jeremy does veer off subject in paragraph five of the essay; he expresses his confusion of why euthanasia is being debated more than abortion. He expresses that there should be more talk of eliminating abortion rather than debating euthanasia, which happens 200 times less than abortion does. Transitions from one paragraph to the next could be improved also. Jeremy tends to jump from one topic to another then back again, making it confusing for the readers to follow. He used a simple form of diction which made it easy for readers to comprehend his writing, and if a complicated word was utilized he made sure to define what it meant afterwards in parenthesis. When discussing the spiritual and moral aspect of the argument he implemented stories and backgrounds of certain areas and cultures, to express why different parts of the country want different things. In closing, Jeremy seemed to be very well rounded in his debate on euthanasia. He appeared to have left little out, and the only improvement I see needed is his construction and order of paragraphs.
No comments:
Post a Comment