Argument Analysis of the Issue of Euthanasia Essay

1.If a flop urinates a pay gather to monastic order and is not incorruptly incorrect, then it should be shake up legal. (IM visionary greens Knowledge)2. free provide mercy hideing refers to a come tos right to kill a termin whollyy ill diligent to his/her request. (IM Oracle definition from www. mercy killing.com)3.If instinctive mercy killing is not a object littleon misdeed and mercy killing creates a acquit benefit on society, then present legal prohibitions against volunteer euthanasia ought to be lifted. (LI from 1,2)4.It is considered a moral duty to kill a court that is torture due to incurable distemper. (IM Oracle Common Knowledge)5.If it is a moral duty to relieve a ache pet with incurable illness from its suffering by killing it, do euthanasia on volition humans that argon terminally ill cannot be a moral transgression. (IM Oracle tacit knowledge)6.Performing euthanasia on leave behinding humans that ar terminally ill is not a moral transgres sion. (LI from 4,5)7.Terminally ill patients enforce curious health check resources. (IM Oracle Common Knowledge)8.Euthanasia would increase the number of terminally ill patients that would exitingly die. (IM Oracle Common Knowledge)9.Patients stop using medical resources once they die. (IM Oracle Common Knowledge)10.Euthanasia would create an increase in scarce medical resources not employ by terminally ill patients. (LI from 7,8,9)11.Other patients will use the scarce medical resources that are not being utilize by terminally ill patients. (IM Oracle Tacit Knowledge)12.Euthanasia would thus create an increase in scarce medical resources that will be used by patients that are not terminally ill. (LI from 10,11)13.Patients that are not terminally ill benefit from medical resources more than terminally ill patients. (IM Oracle Common Knowledge)14.Scarce resources cause the largest benefit to society when used by those pot that can benefit most from them. (IM Oracle Mankiw, Pri nciples of Microeconomics)15.Euthanasia would create a net benefit to society because of its allocation of scarce medical resources. (LI from 12,13,14)16.Present legal prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted. (UC and LI from 3,6,15) line of merc yieldise Evaluation of Original ArgumentEuthanasia is sure to become an issue of increasing importance as our cosmos ages and the spendershipcauses of death become long term debilitating illness sort of than accidents or infectious disease. Too often the manage is clouded by emotion and irrational thought. However, turning ones attention to the following points may serve to clarify the situation.The first hardly a(prenominal) sentences in the speaker systems stemma serve as an basis to the topic. The first to commands establish the importance of the issue. season these ii sentences are no directly part of the descent, the speaker has already made an error. The speaker states that the leadingcauses of death become long term debilitating illness rather than accidentsor infectious disease, and the leading cause of death is already a long term debilitating illness (namely cardiovascular disease).This of business line invokes that the speaker has unreliable information and will make his/her line of credit less trustworthy. The remaining to sentences serve to exclude any irrational topics from being introduced into the cause reflection. This is a very wise move strategicalally since it is in that locationfore received that many a(prenominal) times this subject is clouded by speak of god and prejudice against elderly. While the speaker attempts to avoid discussing such issues, he/she does course credit morality.We consider it a duty, not a moral transgression, to end the animateness of a suffering pet. Why do we balk at providing the alike service to willing humans?The speaker tries to establish that moral transgression is not in question so that it is not brought up in an argu ment criticism. A pet cannot request euthanasia. A pets featureer will have the pet killed if the pet has an incurable illness which will cause unbearable suffering. Humans on the an opposite(prenominal) hand can request euthanasia. If they cannot request euthanasia their surrogate can. thus we moldiness speak of voluntary euthanasia when concerning humans. The speaker is making a tie mingled with the morality of performing euthanasia on pets and the morality of performing euthanasia on humans. This tie-up, represented in statement 3, is an opinion closely what is moral and thus cannot be verified with a strong source. Nonetheless, it is a valid stance on morality and the speaker chose to use this link in his/her argumentIs it not crueler to condemn these individuals to weeks, perhaps even months, of suffering?I did not include this statement in my argument reconstructive memory since I believe it is very weak and is a point that will be criticized greatly. No patient is bein g condemned to suffering. I will growth to this subject in my own argumentBesides, it is a greater damage to squander precious medical resources onthe terminally ill when so many others, particularly infants, could benefit from them instead and frequently this is the only preference to euthanasia.This argument is actually quite weak. Rarely are medical treatments rival. unmatched mortals use of a treatment unremarkably does not affect the use of others. In the case where the medical resources are indeed rival, (eg. organs etc) the speaker himself/herself says that frequently the younger patients or those that will benefit most from the treatment are given the scarce medical resources. The argument about scarce medical resources can be used, however the speaker should not mention frequently this is the only alternative to euthanasia.When these points are considered, it becomes go off that the present legal prohibitions against euthanasia ought to be lifted.This statement is th e speakers last-ditch conclusion. It is not requisite to reestablish the validity of the argument with the statement it becomes exit that. Furthermore, the preposition when these points are considered should be excluded from the sentence as it allows us to louche that there are other points that should be considered. In terms of strategic excellence, the argument should only contain information relevant to the questioners inquiry. No information that does not aid in reaching the eventual(prenominal) conclusion should be present unless absolutely necessary. Lastly, there are many kinds of euthanasia. The speaker must specify that he/she is considering one specific meaning.Voluntary euthanasia refers to the killing of a patient that gives consent to be killed. on that point are problems with determining what is really voluntary. We must assume that the patient is competent of requesting euthanasia. Otherwise, the patients surrogate must request euthanasia. The doctor cannot g o down alone that a patient should be killed. Many times however (according to statistics from Holland where euthanasia is currently legal) a doctor may take his/her own initiative and then lie about the cause of the patients death, attributing death to natural causes. For the purposes of argument, let us assume that voluntary euthanasia will be well(p) correctly and assess whether the prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted.General EvaluationAs is evident from my argument reconstruction, the questioners written argument lacks many links. Most importantly the asker fails to establish that his/her conclusion is found on a conjunction of two opposite claims (actually three, but I excluded the claim that patients are being condemned to suffering for informative correctness purposes). It is extremely important to establish what statements the conclusion is base on. Another major error is the use of wrong information. While the wrong information is not necessa ry for the establishment of the inquirers conclusion, the inquirer still suggests unreliability with his first two introductory statements. Furthermore, the inquirer include the claim that patients are being condemned to suffering. I excluded this statement completely as it is incorrect. I will discuss this subject in my own argument. Lastly, the argument is not set up in an organized manner. The lines of thought are not linear.Rather, the inquirer proceeds in multiple directions failing to cerebrate his conclusion to each point put forth. The inquirer states that his conclusion is sink even though he/she actual failed to show the relation between the left side moves and the conclusion by not establishing that the conclusion is based on a conjunction of two different claims. The inquirer is usually definitorily correct. Occasionally, he/she makes errors. For example, the inquirer fails to define what is meant by euthanasia. It is a simple government issue of vocabulary, yet the intended definition of the word can change the argument in many ways. There are many criticisms of euthanasia associate to involuntary euthanasia. The inquirer should avoid these by specifying he/she is considering only voluntary euthanasia.The inquirer portrays most wise strategic moves in his/her first a few(prenominal) statements. The inquirer first establishes the importance of the subject by implying that as the population mortality age increases more and more patients will be considering euthanasia. While this was a wise strategic move, I did not include it as it was not necessary to establish the conclusions validity. This statement simply served as an debut to a written argument. The inquirer too attempts to avoid any criticism relatedto irrational concepts (such as God) by stating that these ideas simply cloud the subject. This was also a wise strategic move.As discussed previously, the manner in which the ultimate conclusion is stated is quite weak. It is unnecessary to draw attention to the incident of other points being relevant to the subject. In fact, this provokes the reader to search for other subjects that have not been considered and will contradict the inquirers conclusion. He/she also uses a danger signal in the ultimate conclusion. The inquirer says it should be clear that, however the inquirer never establishes the relation between the mentioned points and the ultimate conclusion. This phrase suggests that the inquirer may actually draw no connection at all.Lastly, the argument is valid. Rectifying some mistakes and adding some moves that were assumed explicit the table now does close and there are no other open paths. Thus the argument is complete and the conclusion true, assuming all IMs and LIs are truth preserving.My ArgumentA right that is not necessary (has no use) and can lead to ugly hollo, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable battalion among us should not be legalized.As can be seen from statistics f rom countries that have made voluntary euthanasia legal, there are many complications related to the right not being implemented efficiently. Many doctors may take receipts of the right, many euthanasias are performed on people who did not even request euthanasia with reasons such as It was too practically of a burden for the family or the patients illness was terminal. Evidently, it is not so clear what voluntary or terminal mean, and depending on the doctors vox populi the same patient may be treated differently.Furthermore, doctors can suggest euthanasia to patients that have not even considered it. The psychological stress on a suffering patient is so great that they may be easily influenced by doctors or family members to request the procedure. Laws againsteuthanasia are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others.Secondly, there is no use to the right. Prohibitions against euthanasia are not intended to make patients suffer. No one i s being condemned to suffering. If a patient is capable of requesting euthanasia they are also capable of committing felo-de-se. People do have the role to commit suicide. If the patient does not have the message to commit suicide, a prescription of lethal drugs may be given to the patients but this is no longer considered euthanasia, but rather assisted suicide (which I am in favor of even though for moral reasons I in psyche disagree with suicide). Euthanasia refers to the killing of the patient directly by the doctor (either by lethal injection or by removal from necessary medical treatment). The strike for assisted suicide is a completely different subject and should not be introduced into an argument about euthanasia. If the patient is not capable of requesting euthanasia then a court of jurisprudence will allocate a surrogate to that patient which can make decisions for the patient.If the patient is not capable of requesting euthanasia then the patient may not be able to commit suicide without assistance. and if the patient is in such a condition, they must be in vital need of medical treatment (either machines or drugs). A lot of people call back that euthanasia is needed so patients wont be labored to remain alive by being hooked up to machines. But the law already permits patients or their surrogates to withhold or withdraw unsuitable medical treatment even if that increases the likelihood that the patient will die. Thus, no one needs to be hooked up to machines against their will. Neither the law nor medical ethics requires that everything be done to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patients wishes, that death be postponed by every mode available is contrary to law and practice and is also cruel and inhumane. Thus even a patient that cannot commit suicide can kill himself/herself by removal from treatment.Euthanasia is not necessary and can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable peopl e among us. Prohibitions against euthanasia should not be lifted.(Assisted suicide is when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life. When a doctor helps another person to kill themselves it is called physician assisted suicide. In my opinion, physician assisted suicide should be allowed as long as it is merely assistance and is practiced lawfully. Measures should be taken to ensure it is practiced lawfully. Each doctor should be forced to send in a consent form to some organization first. The consent form should contain the patients or the surrogates signature (if the patient is incapable of signing or requesting). In this way there will be less abuse of the right.)