Assisted suicide is murder. If another person asked their friend to shoot them in the head and kill them would that friend not get charged with murder in the first-degree? Most people who argue in favor of assisted suicide say that each person should have a right to say when and how they want to die. Many people who request assisted suicide have an incurable and terminating disease. They see no hope of getting better and no longer want to be a financial burden to their families trying to fight a disease that will never go away; Although with technology as advanced as it is today, doctors could miraculously come up with a cure for cancer tomorrow! This is why assisted suicide should remain illegal. It leaves no room for a patient to recover from their disease if a doctor just terminates their life; it gives them no chance. Also, a person who is considered suicidal is commonly taken to the hospital and is considered unable to make important and rational decisions for themselves, because they are considered a danger to themselves. If someone requests suicide by another person, should they not be classified the same as someone who considers suicide by their own hand? According to Dr. Joann Lynn, seriously ill and disabled persons could feel that they had to justify a choice to stay alive. They could feel that suicide is, in some sense, "expected" by family or friends. As a society, we have never asked people to justify their being alive, and it seems likely that asking them to do so would run risks of being quite difficult or demeaning. In another sense, assisted suicide is morally wrong. It goes hand in hand with abortion. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong. “A patient who chooses death by assisted suicide is choosing for themselves and a baby who gets aborted does not get to choose between life and death.” Although this is a valid point, assisted suicide is killing a person by sedation and other drugs on purpose. It is an accepted fact of life that the killing of another human is wrong and a punishable act. Also, patients who choose assisted suicide may be under the influence of powerful drugs, which would make them in no fit state to make the decision between life and death in the first place. Another reason assisted suicide is not a wise decision is because doctors are human; they frequently misdiagnose. What if someone got misdiagnosed with cancer, received physician-assisted suicide come to find out he or she did not really have cancer at all? If assisted suicide was legal and every cancer patient decided to kill himself or herself, that would remove any incentive to do medical research. Doctors run tests and do research on patients undergoing chemotherapy and other types of cancer treatment; if all these “guinea pigs” were eliminated, doctors would have no person to conduct research on to someday formulate a cure. On another note, there is much speculation among the anti-assisted suicide that there is much government and insurance company involvement in legalizing this mechanism. Assisted suicide puts the poor people in the United States at high risk. If one does not have health insurance and the money to pay for health care, they would automatically consider the cheap alternative: assisted suicide. The government is not only involved in this aspect of assisted suicide but they are also involved with the middle class and upper class. The longer we keep sick people alive, the more they cost insurance companies. One death bill is much cheaper. If the government can convince someone that dying early is socially accepted, they inherit the person’s money and save billions on Social Security and Medicare as easy as that. According to Jane St. Clair: If you say a dying person has a good enough reason to kill his/herself, why not a person in a wheelchair? Someone whose family was killed in an accident? Someone who faces financial ruin? Suicidal people need treatment for depression, not help committing suicide.
Assisted suicide is another just another freedom that Americans should be allowed to practice. It is very easy to understand why people would argue against this statement and believe that assisted suicide is wrong and a murderous act. However the people who argue against assisted suicide are not usually the patients in the hospital suffering an incurable terminal illness. Countries deal with assisted suicide around the world in a wide variety of ways. Assisted suicide is only legalized in four places around the world. These places are Oregon, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial debate across the world because people see it as either a right or a wrong but this should not be the approach people should take. The approach people should take is that assisted suicide should be a decision made by the person who is sick and their family. It is hard to believe that assisted suicide where the person asks to be put to rest is illegal in most parts of the world but putting a dog to sleep is a common practice. When a dog owner decides that a dog is suffering too much or is too old and that it is time to put them down the dog is not even part of the decision. However for assisted suicide the person wishing to be put to rest is asking to be put to rest at the assistance of another. The person who is helping in the suicide is just carrying out the sick persons wish and just doing them a last favor. Human beings suffering from terminal illness are not being kept alive for free. In 2006 it is reported that Medicare spent about 40 billion more than it should have on end of life care. It is important to realize that a human life is something that a price tag cannot be put on. However this money coming from Medicare can be put to use on patients who are not suffering from a terminal illness. The time and money spent on these patients who would rather be put to rest should be spent on patients who have a chance to live. Everyday families have to decide to pull the plug on a loved one because there is no longer a chance for them to live. Even though this person can keep living and breathing at the expense of the machines that they were attached to before the plug was pulled. Is pulling the plug better or worse than assisted suicide? I would argue that in most instances pulling the plug is a lot worse than assisted suicide. In most cases the families will decide to pull the plug without any consent from the person being killed. At least the person being killed is the one who is making the ultimate decision in assisted suicide. Matthew Donnelly lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw. He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. With a maximum estimate of one year left to live Matthew wanted to die now. His pleas went unanswered. Instead Matthew’s brother shot him with a .30 caliber pistol and was tried for murder. Matthew Donnelly had nothing left to give to society and just wanted to rest in peace. Matthew’s brother would not have had to do such an awful thing had assisted suicide been legal. For Matthew’s brother he felt he was doing the right thing and was not going to fail at doing the last thing his brother asked him to do. Overall assisted suicide is a very controversial topic and can be debated forever but people will never be able to agree on the subject. There are too many things that factor into peoples’ opinions on assisted suicide. However it is hard to take these opinions as serious as the opinions of the people who are actually put in the situations where assisted suicide is considered. This is the main reason why people should be allowed to have the freedom to be put to rest if the circumstances are right. After all why should someone have to lay suffering in a hospital bed with nothing else to give to society if they do not want to? Therefore assisted suicide should be legal in the United States.
Assisted suicide is not murder in the first degree. In fact in most cases the person assisting in a suicide would get charged with murder in the second degree at the most. Typically the jury understands the “criminals” situation and gives them a charge less than murder with a sentence of 10 years or less. It would be nice if we lived in a fairy tale land and doctors could come up with the cure for cancer overnight. However this is not the case at all and the United States is indeed a long ways away from curing cancer. Also, it is important to understand that most patients who want to be put to rest literally cannot be cured. In fact most patients have a set maximum time that they can live. Hence the reason they would like to have a peaceful death. This way they can say their good byes to their loved ones and go out peacefully. Also, letting these people go out in a peaceful manner would relieve a financial tension off of the patient’s family. Acknowledging the fact that killing the patient will give them no chance to live is obvious and not a very valid point against assisted suicide. The fact that assisted suicide gives the patient no chance the live is the very reason why the patient wants to die because they do not want to suffer. Also to say that this is the very reason why the terminally ill should not be able to make this decision is wrong. Why should the government require people by law to suffer in a hospital and pay unnecessary bills if it is against their will?
Part 2: The patients who are in a hospital suffering from a terminal illness that cannot be cured are not the same as people who are considered suicidal. People who are considered suicidal are in a completely different group than those who are about to die and want to go out peacefully. In fact those who are pushing to legalize assisted suicide would agree that suicidal people who are able to live should not be allowed to die at the hands of a doctor. Suicidal people are suffering from depression which is completely different from being physically and or mentally disabled. Trying to use the fact that suicidal people will be able to die at a hospital is a poor counterargument against assisted suicide. Really the statement is just dodging around the really point being argued. Abortion does not go hand in hand with assisted suicide. Abortion is the killing of an unborn fetus that has the potential to live a long lasting and healthy life. On the other hand assisted suicide is the killing of a person who has no more to give to society. I see abortion and assisted suicide as two completely different things that do not go hand in hand with one another because of the difference in potential that each human has to give to society. Also, if these two do indeed go hand in hand with one another I would like to ask the question: If abortion is legal in the United States than why shouldn’t assisted suicide be legalized? A patient who is misdiagnosed with cancer would not be in the fatal condition to be killed at the hands of a doctor under assisted suicide. In order to get assisted suicide the patient would have to be in worse condition than that of a patient who gets misdiagnosed with cancer. Also the hypothetical situation of every cancer patient wanting to kill themselves if assisted suicide was legal is not only farfetched but also disrespectful. Assisted suicide would not be allowed until these patients went through the proper treatments and did not get any better. To think that all cancer patients would want to kill themselves when diagnosed is a complete understatement of the will of the human race. Once again assisted suicide would only be permitted for suffering patients that are incurable and causing a financial strain on their families. Can a person in a wheel chair give more to society than a person who is going to die in a month and cannot move or speak? The answer to this question is yes and that is why these suicidal people would not be allowed to kill themselves with assisted suicide. The same goes for a person who lost their family or is in financial trouble. I would also like to clarify one last time that a person who is suicidal is not the same as a patient who is terminally ill. Assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States because it is just another freedom that citizens of the United States should be allowed to have. It should be the patient’s decision whether or not they want to keep suffering their incurable sickness, not the government’s decision.
Assisted Suicide only being legal in four parts of the world is for good and obvious reasons and people should see it for what it truly is: wrong in many ways. In response to your comment about how people should see it as one?s personal decision, I will refer back to one of my first claims. People who are in the position to request assisted suicide are usually in no mental state to request this death sentence. If one day someone were to announce that he or she is suicidal, would they not be submitted into the psych ward at the hospital as soon as possible? Almost all people who try committing suicide are subconsciously crying out for help. According to the National Right to Life Committee: One study of 886 people who were rescued from attempted suicides found that five years later only 3.84 percent had gone on to kill themselves. This person could be just struggling with depression, have an incurable disease such as cancer, or have just lost a loved one. Bottom line, any normal person can consider committing suicide by his or her own hand, which is illegal, so why should suicide by another?s hand be legal? Suicide by another?s hand is not suicide in any sense. It is murder. ?When a dog owner decides that a dog is suffering too much or is too old and that it is time to put them down the dog is not even part of the decision.? Since there is no way of communicating with a dog, there is no way the dog can be a part of the decision in the first place. Humans are above dogs, and all animals at that. This is why humans are the owners and caretakers of animals and not vice versa. Genesis 1:26 says: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The idea of man dominating over animals has been around since the beginning of time. It is clear to any one that man should have different rights and practices than a suffering dog. As far as Medicare goes, Medicare is there to provide hospital expenses and end of life care for the elders in this country. One cannot even obtain Medicare until they are age sixty five or older, which is when people develop many health problems, which is also the point of Medicare: to provide these people with healthcare benefits. True respect for the rights of people with disabilities would dictate action to remove those obstacles -- not "help" in committing suicide.
?Pulling the plug? is a common phrase these days. This person is usually in critical condition, a vegetable, or in a coma. The people who get this decided for them cannot make decisions themselves, let alone speak for themselves. They cannot even say words out loud. The reason the person?s family is making this decision for them is they do not want to see them in this state any more. They will no longer be able to carry on a normal life and may or may not ever wake up from the coma that they are in. This is totally different from assisted suicide. Like I mentioned in my previous post, if a person is suicidal they need to be hospitalized and medicated, not granted their own twisted wish. Just because bad things happen to good people does not mean that they should be allowed to kill themselves. According to Wesley J. Smith: Legalizing assisted suicide would also be very risky. The Netherlands proves that once mercy killing is allowed for the few, it steadily spreads. In the past 30 years, Dutch doctors have gone from killing the terminally ill, to the disabled, and even to the depressed who aren't physically sick. Recent headlines report that infanticide of dying and disabled babies will soon be legalized by the Dutch Parliament. Supporters of Assisted Suicide would say that it would not happen like that in the United States. They would use Oregon as an example, although no one knows what is really going on in Oregon behinds closed doors. In my opinion, assisted suicide is like a drug and with all drugs they can be abused and misused.
I liked how Tessa's argument had a build up. Her points became stronger as she discussed her views which really gave her a lot of pathos. However, I feel that Bobby had a better approach to attack the issue and definitely captured ethos in his debate, making it more persuasive. I also like how Bobby brought up a very relatable topic, abortion, because I would have never tied the two together before hearing his argument. I really enjoyed hearing the two perspectives on suicidal patients and the terminally ill. I like how Bobby really separated the two because Tessa's argument seemed to be weaker because that was too much of a focus. I also felt that tying in religion and focusing on the dying dog really hurt Tessa's argument because she was attacking a minor point instead of a major argument from Bobby. In general, I felt that Bobby's side of the debate was a lot more persuasive because he really did a good job of hitting several points and giving a great perspective to the argument. He seemed to have a lot of pathos and credibility and effectively used ethos to make me more swayed to his argument. I had a really great time learning about both aspects of your topic, and I think your debate was very successful!
All in all, I feel that both Tessa and Bob made very valid points in both of their arguments. I feel that Bob’s argument was a little bit stronger that Tessa’s. I think that when Tessa compared the killing of a dog to the killing of a human really hurt her argument. One thing I really liked about Bob’s argument was when he brought up the case of Matthew Donnelly. Tessa had said that those that should only be allowed to have an “assisted suicide” are those that can no longer carry on a normal life, but I feel that someone that has lost multiple parts of his body as well as his sight would have a very hard time carrying on a normal life. So was it so wrong for Matthew to want to go in peace rather than to live life blind and without many limbs? Matthew wanted his family to remember him as the person he was before he was hurt rather than who he was after. He wanted them to remember the good times rather than bad and therefore would have preferred to go in peace with the help of “assisted suicide”. Matthew will no longer be able to live a normal life. I really liked how Bob brought in the example of abortion to his argument. I feel that both did a great job but that Bob’s argument was stronger.
Assisted suicide is a topic that touches the lives of everyone because death is inevitable. The both of you did a great job using research to back up both of your arguments. For Bob, using the Matthew Donnelly example gave a real sense for what can happen with an important decision like this when dealing with family members. This gave all of the readers a sort of connection to the story, giving us a sense of reality. Also, Tessa counterarguments on the dog debate ceased that certain topic. The way she referred to the Bible and selected that verse made no room for a rebuttal. I also enjoyed the topic of the terminally ill comparing to the suicidal. Bob did a great job putting a distinction between the two issues. It seemed that Tessa seemed to have more research when dealing with her side of the argument and more logos to back it up. Her argument, to me, seemed a bit more credible.
Tessa did a great job claiming her argument right away. I knew exactly what side of the argument she was arguing for. One of the negative things she said was when she brought up the topic about abortion. I think this is completely off subject and also brings up a whole other argument. Readers are going to have totally different opinions on abortions than assisted suicide, and most likely not be on her side anymore. She then turns around and attacks Bob for claiming putting a families pet dog down is the same thing. She says that dogs cannot make their own decisions whether they want to live, but can babies that are not born yet either? She also says that people who are suicidal are probably on drugs, which is completely false. Yes, this might be the case sometimes but probably not even majority of the time. On the other hand, she attacked a lot of his points and made good arguments against him. When she talked about Social Security and Medicare, this was head on and really made me believe her argument. My favorite quote by Bob was when he made that dog comment. He really used ethos here to attract readers. Readers have majority of the time probably experienced this with their family dog. Putting their pet dog down is a hard thing to do but most people believe it is for the better. I believe this does relate hand in hand with assisted suicide, since your family dog is considered part of the family. He also questions that “pulling the plug” on a family member is that the same thing as assisted suicide. After really thinking about it, it kind of is the same thing. This was a really good point made by him. He also states “However the people who argue against assisted suicide are not usually the patients in the hospital suffering an incurable terminal illness.” This is a really good quote. No one really knows how these people in the hospital are feeling so how can you tell them they do not want to die when you have no idea how they are actually feeling. Lastly, the thing that really upset me that he did was attack Tessa as a person. He claims that she was being disrespectful and says one of her comments was actually an “understatement of the human race”. This was rather rude, and not appropriate. Besides that I think he did a great job and really got his ideas across.
Assisted suicide is murder. If another person asked their friend to shoot them in the head and kill them would that friend not get charged with murder in the first-degree?
ReplyDeleteMost people who argue in favor of assisted suicide say that each person should have a right to say when and how they want to die. Many people who request assisted suicide have an incurable and terminating disease. They see no hope of getting better and no longer want to be a financial burden to their families trying to fight a disease that will never go away; Although with technology as advanced as it is today, doctors could miraculously come up with a cure for cancer tomorrow! This is why assisted suicide should remain illegal. It leaves no room for a patient to recover from their disease if a doctor just terminates their life; it gives them no chance. Also, a person who is considered suicidal is commonly taken to the hospital and is considered unable to make important and rational decisions for themselves, because they are considered a danger to themselves. If someone requests suicide by another person, should they not be classified the same as someone who considers suicide by their own hand?
According to Dr. Joann Lynn, seriously ill and disabled persons could feel that they had to justify a choice to stay alive. They could feel that suicide is, in some sense, "expected" by family or friends. As a society, we have never asked people to justify their being alive, and it seems likely that asking them to do so would run risks of being quite difficult or demeaning.
In another sense, assisted suicide is morally wrong. It goes hand in hand with abortion. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong. “A patient who chooses death by assisted suicide is choosing for themselves and a baby who gets aborted does not get to choose between life and death.” Although this is a valid point, assisted suicide is killing a person by sedation and other drugs on purpose. It is an accepted fact of life that the killing of another human is wrong and a punishable act. Also, patients who choose assisted suicide may be under the influence of powerful drugs, which would make them in no fit state to make the decision between life and death in the first place.
Another reason assisted suicide is not a wise decision is because doctors are human; they frequently misdiagnose. What if someone got misdiagnosed with cancer, received physician-assisted suicide come to find out he or she did not really have cancer at all?
If assisted suicide was legal and every cancer patient decided to kill himself or herself, that would remove any incentive to do medical research. Doctors run tests and do research on patients undergoing chemotherapy and other types of cancer treatment; if all these “guinea pigs” were eliminated, doctors would have no person to conduct research on to someday formulate a cure.
On another note, there is much speculation among the anti-assisted suicide that there is much government and insurance company involvement in legalizing this mechanism. Assisted suicide puts the poor people in the United States at high risk. If one does not have health insurance and the money to pay for health care, they would automatically consider the cheap alternative: assisted suicide. The government is not only involved in this aspect of assisted suicide but they are also involved with the middle class and upper class. The longer we keep sick people alive, the more they cost insurance companies. One death bill is much cheaper. If the government can convince someone that dying early is socially accepted, they inherit the person’s money and save billions on Social Security and Medicare as easy as that.
According to Jane St. Clair: If you say a dying person has a good enough reason to kill his/herself, why not a person in a wheelchair? Someone whose family was killed in an accident? Someone who faces financial ruin? Suicidal people need treatment for depression, not help committing suicide.
Assisted suicide is another just another freedom that Americans should be allowed to practice. It is very easy to understand why people would argue against this statement and believe that assisted suicide is wrong and a murderous act. However the people who argue against assisted suicide are not usually the patients in the hospital suffering an incurable terminal illness. Countries deal with assisted suicide around the world in a wide variety of ways. Assisted suicide is only legalized in four places around the world. These places are Oregon, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial debate across the world because people see it as either a right or a wrong but this should not be the approach people should take. The approach people should take is that assisted suicide should be a decision made by the person who is sick and their family.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to believe that assisted suicide where the person asks to be put to rest is illegal in most parts of the world but putting a dog to sleep is a common practice. When a dog owner decides that a dog is suffering too much or is too old and that it is time to put them down the dog is not even part of the decision. However for assisted suicide the person wishing to be put to rest is asking to be put to rest at the assistance of another. The person who is helping in the suicide is just carrying out the sick persons wish and just doing them a last favor.
Human beings suffering from terminal illness are not being kept alive for free. In 2006 it is reported that Medicare spent about 40 billion more than it should have on end of life care. It is important to realize that a human life is something that a price tag cannot be put on. However this money coming from Medicare can be put to use on patients who are not suffering from a terminal illness. The time and money spent on these patients who would rather be put to rest should be spent on patients who have a chance to live.
Everyday families have to decide to pull the plug on a loved one because there is no longer a chance for them to live. Even though this person can keep living and breathing at the expense of the machines that they were attached to before the plug was pulled. Is pulling the plug better or worse than assisted suicide? I would argue that in most instances pulling the plug is a lot worse than assisted suicide. In most cases the families will decide to pull the plug without any consent from the person being killed. At least the person being killed is the one who is making the ultimate decision in assisted suicide.
Matthew Donnelly lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw. He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. With a maximum estimate of one year left to live Matthew wanted to die now. His pleas went unanswered. Instead Matthew’s brother shot him with a .30 caliber pistol and was tried for murder. Matthew Donnelly had nothing left to give to society and just wanted to rest in peace. Matthew’s brother would not have had to do such an awful thing had assisted suicide been legal. For Matthew’s brother he felt he was doing the right thing and was not going to fail at doing the last thing his brother asked him to do.
Overall assisted suicide is a very controversial topic and can be debated forever but people will never be able to agree on the subject. There are too many things that factor into peoples’ opinions on assisted suicide. However it is hard to take these opinions as serious as the opinions of the people who are actually put in the situations where assisted suicide is considered. This is the main reason why people should be allowed to have the freedom to be put to rest if the circumstances are right. After all why should someone have to lay suffering in a hospital bed with nothing else to give to society if they do not want to? Therefore assisted suicide should be legal in the United States.
Assisted suicide is not murder in the first degree. In fact in most cases the person assisting in a suicide would get charged with murder in the second degree at the most. Typically the jury understands the “criminals” situation and gives them a charge less than murder with a sentence of 10 years or less.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if we lived in a fairy tale land and doctors could come up with the cure for cancer overnight. However this is not the case at all and the United States is indeed a long ways away from curing cancer. Also, it is important to understand that most patients who want to be put to rest literally cannot be cured. In fact most patients have a set maximum time that they can live. Hence the reason they would like to have a peaceful death. This way they can say their good byes to their loved ones and go out peacefully. Also, letting these people go out in a peaceful manner would relieve a financial tension off of the patient’s family. Acknowledging the fact that killing the patient will give them no chance to live is obvious and not a very valid point against assisted suicide. The fact that assisted suicide gives the patient no chance the live is the very reason why the patient wants to die because they do not want to suffer. Also to say that this is the very reason why the terminally ill should not be able to make this decision is wrong. Why should the government require people by law to suffer in a hospital and pay unnecessary bills if it is against their will?
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe patients who are in a hospital suffering from a terminal illness that cannot be cured are not the same as people who are considered suicidal. People who are considered suicidal are in a completely different group than those who are about to die and want to go out peacefully. In fact those who are pushing to legalize assisted suicide would agree that suicidal people who are able to live should not be allowed to die at the hands of a doctor. Suicidal people are suffering from depression which is completely different from being physically and or mentally disabled. Trying to use the fact that suicidal people will be able to die at a hospital is a poor counterargument against assisted suicide. Really the statement is just dodging around the really point being argued.
Abortion does not go hand in hand with assisted suicide. Abortion is the killing of an unborn fetus that has the potential to live a long lasting and healthy life. On the other hand assisted suicide is the killing of a person who has no more to give to society. I see abortion and assisted suicide as two completely different things that do not go hand in hand with one another because of the difference in potential that each human has to give to society. Also, if these two do indeed go hand in hand with one another I would like to ask the question: If abortion is legal in the United States than why shouldn’t assisted suicide be legalized?
A patient who is misdiagnosed with cancer would not be in the fatal condition to be killed at the hands of a doctor under assisted suicide. In order to get assisted suicide the patient would have to be in worse condition than that of a patient who gets misdiagnosed with cancer. Also the hypothetical situation of every cancer patient wanting to kill themselves if assisted suicide was legal is not only farfetched but also disrespectful. Assisted suicide would not be allowed until these patients went through the proper treatments and did not get any better. To think that all cancer patients would want to kill themselves when diagnosed is a complete understatement of the will of the human race. Once again assisted suicide would only be permitted for suffering patients that are incurable and causing a financial strain on their families.
Can a person in a wheel chair give more to society than a person who is going to die in a month and cannot move or speak? The answer to this question is yes and that is why these suicidal people would not be allowed to kill themselves with assisted suicide. The same goes for a person who lost their family or is in financial trouble. I would also like to clarify one last time that a person who is suicidal is not the same as a patient who is terminally ill. Assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States because it is just another freedom that citizens of the United States should be allowed to have. It should be the patient’s decision whether or not they want to keep suffering their incurable sickness, not the government’s decision.
Assisted Suicide only being legal in four parts of the world is for good and obvious reasons and people should see it for what it truly is: wrong in many ways. In response to your comment about how people should see it as one?s personal decision, I will refer back to one of my first claims. People who are in the position to request assisted suicide are usually in no mental state to request this death sentence. If one day someone were to announce that he or she is suicidal, would they not be submitted into the psych ward at the hospital as soon as possible? Almost all people who try committing suicide are subconsciously crying out for help. According to the National Right to Life Committee: One study of 886 people who were rescued from attempted suicides found that five years later only 3.84 percent had gone on to kill themselves. This person could be just struggling with depression, have an incurable disease such as cancer, or have just lost a loved one. Bottom line, any normal person can consider committing suicide by his or her own hand, which is illegal, so why should suicide by another?s hand be legal? Suicide by another?s hand is not suicide in any sense. It is murder.
ReplyDelete?When a dog owner decides that a dog is suffering too much or is too old and that it is time to put them down the dog is not even part of the decision.? Since there is no way of communicating with a dog, there is no way the dog can be a part of the decision in the first place. Humans are above dogs, and all animals at that. This is why humans are the owners and caretakers of animals and not vice versa. Genesis 1:26 says: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The idea of man dominating over animals has been around since the beginning of time. It is clear to any one that man should have different rights and practices than a suffering dog.
As far as Medicare goes, Medicare is there to provide hospital expenses and end of life care for the elders in this country. One cannot even obtain Medicare until they are age sixty five or older, which is when people develop many health problems, which is also the point of Medicare: to provide these people with healthcare benefits. True respect for the rights of people with disabilities would dictate action to remove those obstacles -- not "help" in committing suicide.
?Pulling the plug? is a common phrase these days. This person is usually in critical condition, a vegetable, or in a coma. The people who get this decided for them cannot make decisions themselves, let alone speak for themselves. They cannot even say words out loud. The reason the person?s family is making this decision for them is they do not want to see them in this state any more. They will no longer be able to carry on a normal life and may or may not ever wake up from the coma that they are in. This is totally different from assisted suicide. Like I mentioned in my previous post, if a person is suicidal they need to be hospitalized and medicated, not granted their own twisted wish. Just because bad things happen to good people does not mean that they should be allowed to kill themselves.
According to Wesley J. Smith: Legalizing assisted suicide would also be very risky. The Netherlands proves that once mercy killing is allowed for the few, it steadily spreads. In the past 30 years, Dutch doctors have gone from killing the terminally ill, to the disabled, and even to the depressed who aren't physically sick. Recent headlines report that infanticide of dying and disabled babies will soon be legalized by the Dutch Parliament.
Supporters of Assisted Suicide would say that it would not happen like that in the United States. They would use Oregon as an example, although no one knows what is really going on in Oregon behinds closed doors. In my opinion, assisted suicide is like a drug and with all drugs they can be abused and misused.
I liked how Tessa's argument had a build up. Her points became stronger as she discussed her views which really gave her a lot of pathos. However, I feel that Bobby had a better approach to attack the issue and definitely captured ethos in his debate, making it more persuasive. I also like how Bobby brought up a very relatable topic, abortion, because I would have never tied the two together before hearing his argument. I really enjoyed hearing the two perspectives on suicidal patients and the terminally ill. I like how Bobby really separated the two because Tessa's argument seemed to be weaker because that was too much of a focus. I also felt that tying in religion and focusing on the dying dog really hurt Tessa's argument because she was attacking a minor point instead of a major argument from Bobby. In general, I felt that Bobby's side of the debate was a lot more persuasive because he really did a good job of hitting several points and giving a great perspective to the argument. He seemed to have a lot of pathos and credibility and effectively used ethos to make me more swayed to his argument. I had a really great time learning about both aspects of your topic, and I think your debate was very successful!
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I feel that both Tessa and Bob made very valid points in both of their arguments. I feel that Bob’s argument was a little bit stronger that Tessa’s. I think that when Tessa compared the killing of a dog to the killing of a human really hurt her argument. One thing I really liked about Bob’s argument was when he brought up the case of Matthew Donnelly. Tessa had said that those that should only be allowed to have an “assisted suicide” are those that can no longer carry on a normal life, but I feel that someone that has lost multiple parts of his body as well as his sight would have a very hard time carrying on a normal life. So was it so wrong for Matthew to want to go in peace rather than to live life blind and without many limbs? Matthew wanted his family to remember him as the person he was before he was hurt rather than who he was after. He wanted them to remember the good times rather than bad and therefore would have preferred to go in peace with the help of “assisted suicide”. Matthew will no longer be able to live a normal life. I really liked how Bob brought in the example of abortion to his argument. I feel that both did a great job but that Bob’s argument was stronger.
ReplyDeleteAssisted suicide is a topic that touches the lives of everyone because death is inevitable. The both of you did a great job using research to back up both of your arguments. For Bob, using the Matthew Donnelly example gave a real sense for what can happen with an important decision like this when dealing with family members. This gave all of the readers a sort of connection to the story, giving us a sense of reality. Also, Tessa counterarguments on the dog debate ceased that certain topic. The way she referred to the Bible and selected that verse made no room for a rebuttal. I also enjoyed the topic of the terminally ill comparing to the suicidal. Bob did a great job putting a distinction between the two issues. It seemed that Tessa seemed to have more research when dealing with her side of the argument and more logos to back it up. Her argument, to me, seemed a bit more credible.
ReplyDeleteTessa did a great job claiming her argument right away. I knew exactly what side of the argument she was arguing for. One of the negative things she said was when she brought up the topic about abortion. I think this is completely off subject and also brings up a whole other argument. Readers are going to have totally different opinions on abortions than assisted suicide, and most likely not be on her side anymore. She then turns around and attacks Bob for claiming putting a families pet dog down is the same thing. She says that dogs cannot make their own decisions whether they want to live, but can babies that are not born yet either? She also says that people who are suicidal are probably on drugs, which is completely false. Yes, this might be the case sometimes but probably not even majority of the time. On the other hand, she attacked a lot of his points and made good arguments against him. When she talked about Social Security and Medicare, this was head on and really made me believe her argument.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite quote by Bob was when he made that dog comment. He really used ethos here to attract readers. Readers have majority of the time probably experienced this with their family dog. Putting their pet dog down is a hard thing to do but most people believe it is for the better. I believe this does relate hand in hand with assisted suicide, since your family dog is considered part of the family. He also questions that “pulling the plug” on a family member is that the same thing as assisted suicide. After really thinking about it, it kind of is the same thing. This was a really good point made by him. He also states “However the people who argue against assisted suicide are not usually the patients in the hospital suffering an incurable terminal illness.” This is a really good quote. No one really knows how these people in the hospital are feeling so how can you tell them they do not want to die when you have no idea how they are actually feeling. Lastly, the thing that really upset me that he did was attack Tessa as a person. He claims that she was being disrespectful and says one of her comments was actually an “understatement of the human race”. This was rather rude, and not appropriate. Besides that I think he did a great job and really got his ideas across.