Writing a Critical Essay
A vital part of writing a critical essay is to analyse supporting evidence. This means you should not just add information from articles or newpapers reports wholesale (word-for-word). You need to 'carry out a dialogue' with the evidence you are providing. A good critical essay will have relevant supporting evidence that add credibility to your arguments. The following task will help you to search for and analyse supporting evidence.
Task: Write a response of at least 200 words to the statement below:
'Euthanasia should be legalised'
1) Before writing your essay, you should do the following:
a) Search for information on the latest debates concerning the topic (e.g. Factival/E-library)
b) Provide some statistics and figures related to the topic (both for and against euthanasia) ifpossible or case-studies (stories of patients)
c) Include the opinions of medical practitioners and carers (e.g. family members)
3) Carry out a discussion/debate (rebuttals and counter-arguments) with the information you obtained from (1) by adding your personal views and opinions.
Note: An example of a rebuttal could be : 'the writer of the articule/report fails to....'
'An example of a counter argument: 'While I agree generally with the argument stated, however, I....'
Finally, remember to post your comment as marks will be given for this task. You must finish it by the end of today's lesson. Have fun :)
posted by Ms Betty Tan @ 5:41 PM
5 Comments:
Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean any form of termination of life by a doctor however the Holland law gives a narrower meaning. In Dutch law it means the termination of life by a doctor at the wish of a patient.
Personally I feel that Euthanasia should not be legalised as every life is precious and I feel that they should not be ended when their time is not up yet. It is also against my religious values as a Christian as life is given by God and those who commit suicide are said to go to hell as it is considered as a form of murder. So why avoid suffering on earth to endure eternal suffering?
In America, President George Bush supported by Religious groups has tried to overturn the “die with dignity” law in America which allows terminally ill patients to receive lethal doses of medication. This has proven my point that many still do not agree to Euthanasia even the president of America himself.
Even though I do not agree with Euthanasia I am gravely concerned in letting the patients die with dignity. With regards to the American law “die with dignity”, patients who choose to die are allowed to do so provided they fit in a criteria that they are terminally ill and have been ill for more than 6 months.
In Australia, the Spanbroek are requesting for their 29 year old child’s life to be ended as they want him to die with dignity. The family is unwilling to see the once energetic boy who is weighing only 30kg now to continue to deteriorate for nothing.
An Australian study claims that nearly 2 out of 3 hospital deaths involves Euthanasia, about 10,000 Victorians die after doctors withdraw treatment or give pain relief to end their lives. Nearly 40% of the surveyed doctors are willing to help their patients die. This helps to prove my point as more than half of the doctors still stand with their morale value on not assisting in suicide.
Even though many have agreed to let patients who are terminally ill die with dignity by legalising Euthanasia, I beg to differ as there are patients who recover miraculously as said by Dr. Andrew Weil, M.D. in his book Spontaneous Healing where he gives 2 examples, one of a boy in coma who has severe head injury and recovered and another patient whom he sent home to die of lung cancer returned to him cancer free.
And so I feel that no matter the case Life should be treasure and Euthanasia should not be legalised.
Jeremiah Soh
Hafiz B Sarip
0428699
When I read the topic ‘euthanasia should be legalised’, my stand on the issue was clear, that it should not be allowed. Life and death should not be handled us human beings, instead it should be left to god to decide when and how we die. What doctors should do is to try to help the patient to health the best they can, not kill them. What we should more appropriately consider is that wether life-prolonging devices should still be used in today’s generation. The reason I used the word ‘generation’ is because perhaps we can discover a life-saving machines that not just keep the patient alive but up and walking again in the future. However, we have not reached that stage yet, so perhaps it is good to ‘uninstall the programme from the system’, for now at least. It would be a better for them to die naturally when there is no hope for them to live rather than to be poked with hundreds of needles to keep them alive, after which the family would play Russian roulette, deciding the fate of the patient.
In an article published in the Today newspaper, the writer wrote that “Physician-assisted suicide is an emotional and contentious issue very similar to another controversial subject - abortion. The pro-life group maintains that life is precious and only God can take it away.” This is consistent with my argument , which I have explained in the earlier paragraph. To decide to kill a human life is to play god, and cannot be tolerated. Another quote I found is the following.” in all major religions, particularly Islam, Christianity and Judaism, euthanasia is strictly forbidden. These religions believe human life is sacred and only God can create and end the lives of people.” My last argument to this topic is when people claim that to be mercy-killed is to die “painfully”. This is certainly not true. I believe that dying is a very painful experience, no matter how a person dies. This is based on my faith as a Muslim, and the holy book of Al-Qur’an.
To conclude, euthanasia is not the right thing to do,regardless of how much a person is suffering physical pain. Also, it is our way of saying “I am not capable to help you get better, so I am going to kill you”
I agree to a small extent that euthanasia should be legalised since the Netherlands is the first to legalise euthanasia. Euthanasia defines the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. As life in a vegetable state is like no life at all and a vegetable person just waste his time bedridden and may just die anytime. Thus, he will be wasting money and electricity on the tubes that is making him alive only. As quoted from a student, “Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.”
In a report from the Straits Times, it introduced a will called the Advanced Medical Directive (AMD). This is a document that a person signs to tell the doctors that if the patient has a terminal illness and if the patients are unable to express their wishes, the patient does not wish their life to be artificially prolonged. An AMD can be applied free only if the applicant is above 21years old and above and be of sound mind. This states that actually euthanasia is being legalised in another way. I strongly feel that it is good for everyone if euthanasia is being legalised in this way because this will not make everyone feel that doctors are “murderers” since the patients are willing to die in this way, thus fulfilling the will of the patients.
From a survey being done by a writer, he conducted a phone poll asking readers whether euthanasia should be legalised. It quoted a statistics of 93 per cent of 1,135 respondents called in. This shows that a number of people actually think that legalising euthanasia should be done.
However, I disagree to a large extent that euthanasia should be legalised because it quoted in an article, “Legalising euthanasia will devalue human life and suggest to the sick that their lives are worthless.” This shows that anyone can just kill the terminally ill patients by euthanasia since it is legal to do that and they would not be caught for doing that. Then murderers can just run away from the law.
Legalising euthanasia makes the terminally ill derive their will of living because the family members of the patients did not know what they are thinking. Do they want to die or do they want to live? What if they want to live? That will make their family members a sinner if they want the doctor to “kill” the terminally ill patients. But the family members will feel sad and heartbroken to see them suffering bedridden. As quoted from Straits Times, “The Terri Schiavo case is an indictment of a society that has grown increasingly callous to the intrinsic value of human life. Mrs Schiavo was not 'terminally ill' by any medical definition. There are even questions as to whether she was in a permanent vegetative state. She was sentenced to a most inhumane death simply because she was unable to defend herself.”
Therefore, I strongly disagree that euthanasia should be legalised because everyone should have to right and will to live even he is bedridden for the rest of his life. At least, they live their lives to the fullest. This way of ending the lives of the terminally ill is cruel and inhuman to them.
(630 words)
I agree to a small extent that euthanasia should be legalised since the Netherlands is the first to legalise euthanasia. Euthanasia defines the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. As life in a vegetable state is like no life at all and a vegetable person just waste his time bedridden and may just die anytime. Thus, he will be wasting money and electricity on the tubes that is making him alive only. As quoted from a student, “Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.”
In a report from the Straits Times, it introduced a will called the Advanced Medical Directive (AMD). This is a document that a person signs to tell the doctors that if the patient has a terminal illness and if the patients are unable to express their wishes, the patient does not wish their life to be artificially prolonged. An AMD can be applied free only if the applicant is above 21years old and above and be of sound mind. This states that actually euthanasia is being legalised in another way. I strongly feel that it is good for everyone if euthanasia is being legalised in this way because this will not make everyone feel that doctors are “murderers” since the patients are willing to die in this way, thus fulfilling the will of the patients.
From a survey being done by a writer, he conducted a phone poll asking readers whether euthanasia should be legalised. It quoted a statistics of 93 per cent of 1,135 respondents called in. This shows that a number of people actually think that legalising euthanasia should be done.
However, I disagree to a large extent that euthanasia should be legalised because it quoted in an article, “Legalising euthanasia will devalue human life and suggest to the sick that their lives are worthless.” This shows that anyone can just kill the terminally ill patients by euthanasia since it is legal to do that and they would not be caught for doing that. Then murderers can just run away from the law.
Legalising euthanasia makes the terminally ill derive their will of living because the family members of the patients did not know what they are thinking. Do they want to die or do they want to live? What if they want to live? That will make their family members a sinner if they want the doctor to “kill” the terminally ill patients. But the family members will feel sad and heartbroken to see them suffering bedridden. As quoted from Straits Times, “The Terri Schiavo case is an indictment of a society that has grown increasingly callous to the intrinsic value of human life. Mrs Schiavo was not 'terminally ill' by any medical definition. There are even questions as to whether she was in a permanent vegetative state. She was sentenced to a most inhumane death simply because she was unable to defend herself.”
Therefore, I strongly disagree that euthanasia should be legalised because everyone should have to right and will to live even he is bedridden for the rest of his life. At least, they live their lives to the fullest. This way of ending the lives of the terminally ill is cruel and inhuman to them.
(630 words)
I agree to a small extent that euthanasia should be legalised since the Netherlands is the first to legalise euthanasia. Euthanasia defines the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. As life in a vegetable state is like no life at all and a vegetable person just waste his time bedridden and may just die anytime. Thus, he will be wasting money and electricity on the tubes that is making him alive only. As quoted from a student, “Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.”
In a report from the Straits Times, it introduced a will called the Advanced Medical Directive (AMD). This is a document that a person signs to tell the doctors that if the patient has a terminal illness and if the patients are unable to express their wishes, the patient does not wish their life to be artificially prolonged. An AMD can be applied free only if the applicant is above 21years old and above and be of sound mind. This states that actually euthanasia is being legalised in another way. I strongly feel that it is good for everyone if euthanasia is being legalised in this way because this will not make everyone feel that doctors are “murderers” since the patients are willing to die in this way, thus fulfilling the will of the patients.
From a survey being done by a writer, he conducted a phone poll asking readers whether euthanasia should be legalised. It quoted a statistics of 93 per cent of 1,135 respondents called in. This shows that a number of people actually think that legalising euthanasia should be done.
However, I disagree to a large extent that euthanasia should be legalised because it quoted in an article, “Legalising euthanasia will devalue human life and suggest to the sick that their lives are worthless.” This shows that anyone can just kill the terminally ill patients by euthanasia since it is legal to do that and they would not be caught for doing that. Then murderers can just run away from the law.
Legalising euthanasia makes the terminally ill derive their will of living because the family members of the patients did not know what they are thinking. Do they want to die or do they want to live? What if they want to live? That will make their family members a sinner if they want the doctor to “kill” the terminally ill patients. But the family members will feel sad and heartbroken to see them suffering bedridden. As quoted from Straits Times, “The Terri Schiavo case is an indictment of a society that has grown increasingly callous to the intrinsic value of human life. Mrs Schiavo was not 'terminally ill' by any medical definition. There are even questions as to whether she was in a permanent vegetative state. She was sentenced to a most inhumane death simply because she was unable to defend herself.”
Therefore, I strongly disagree that euthanasia should be legalised because everyone should have to right and will to live even he is bedridden for the rest of his life. At least, they live their lives to the fullest. This way of ending the lives of the terminally ill is cruel and inhuman to them.
(630 words)
Post a Comment
<< Home