Argument Analysis of the Issue of Euthanasia Essay Example for Free

Argument Analysis of the Issue of Euthanasia Essay 1.If a right creates a net benefit to society and is not morally incorrect, then it should be made legal. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 2.Voluntary euthanasia refers to a doctors right to kill a terminally ill patient to his/her request. (IM; Oracle: definition from www.euthanasia.com) 3.If voluntary euthanasia is not a moral transgression and euthanasia creates a net benefit on society, then present legal prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted. (LI from 1,2) 4.It is considered a moral duty to kill a pet that is suffering due to incurable illness. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 5.If it is a moral duty to relieve a suffering pet with incurable illness from its suffering by killing it, performing euthanasia on willing humans that are terminally ill cannot be a moral transgression. (IM; Oracle: tacit knowledge) 6.Performing euthanasia on willing humans that are terminally ill is not a moral transgression. (LI from 4,5) 7.Terminally ill patients use scarce medical resources. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 8.Euthanasia would increase the number of terminally ill patients that would willingly 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 used by terminally ill patients. (LI from 7,8,9) 11.Other patients will use the scarce medical resources that are not being used 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 people that can benefit most from them. (IM; Oracle: Mankiw, Principles 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) Argument Evaluation of Original Argument Euthanasia is sure to become an issue of increasing importance as our population ages and the leading  causes of death become long term debilitating illness rather than accidents or infectious disease. Too often the debate is clouded by emotion and irrational thought. However, turning ones attention to the following points may serve to clarify the situation. The first few sentences in the speakers argument serve as an introduction to the topic. The first to statements establish the importance of the issue. While these two sentences are no directly part of the argument, the speaker has already made an error. The speaker states that the leading  causes of death become long term debilitating illness rather than accidents  or infectious disease, however the leading cause of death is already a long term debilitating illness (namely cardiovascular disease). This of course suggests that the speaker has unreliable information and will make his/her argument less trustworthy. The remaining to sentences serve to exclude any irrational topics from being introduced into the argument criticism. This is a very wise move strategically since it is indeed true that many 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 mention morality. We consider it a duty, not a moral transgression, to end the life of a suffering pet. Why do we balk at providing the same 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 argument criticism. A pet cannot request euthanasia. A pets owner will have the pet killed if the pet has an incurable illness which will cause unbearable suffering. Humans on the other hand can request euthanasia. If they cannot request euthanasia their surrogate can. Thus we must speak of voluntary euthanasia when concerning humans. The speaker is making a link between the morality of performing euthanasia on pets and the morality of performing euthanasia on humans. This link, represented in statement 3, is an opinion about 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 argument Is it not crueler to condemn these individuals to weeks, perhaps even months, of suffering? I did not include this statement in my argument reconstruction since I believe it is very weak and is a point that will be criticized greatly. No patient is being condemned to suffering. I will return to this subject in my own argument Besides, it is a greater injustice to squander precious medical resources on  the terminally ill when so many others, particularly infants, could benefit from them instead; and frequently this is the only alternative to euthanasia. This argument is actually quite weak. Rarely are medical treatments rival. One persons use of a treatment usually 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 clear that the present legal prohibitions against euthanasia ought to be lifted. This statement is the speakers ultimate conclusion. It is not necessary to reestablish the validity of the argument with the statement it becomes clear that. Furthermore, the preposition when these points are considered should be excluded from the sentence as it allows us to suspect that there are other points that should be considered. In terms of strategic excellence, the argument should only contain information relevant to the inquirers inquiry. No information that does not aid in reaching the ultimate 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. There are problems with determining what is really voluntary. We must assume that the patient is capable of requesting euthanasia. Otherwise, the patients surrogate must request euthanasia. The doctor cannot decide 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 practiced correctly and assess whether the prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted. General Evaluation: As is evident from my argument reconstruction, the inquirers written argument lacks many links. Most importantly the inquirer fails to establish that his/her conclusion is based on a conjunction of two different 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 based on. Another major error is the use of wrong information. While the wrong information is not necessary for the establishment of the inquirers conclusion, the inquirer still suggests unreliability with his first two introductory statements. Furthermore, the inquirer included 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 relate his conclusion to each point put forth. The inquirer states that his conclusion is clear 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 matter of vocabulary, yet the intended definition of the word can change the argument in many ways. There are many criticisms of euthanasia related to involuntary euthanasia. The inquirer should avoid these by specifying he/she is considering only voluntary euthanasia. The inquirer portrays some wise strategic moves in his/her first few 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 introduction to a written argument. The inquirer also attempts to avoid any criticism related  to 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 possibility 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 obvious 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 Argument A right that is not necessary (has no use) and can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us should not be legalized. As can be seen from statistics from countries that have made voluntary euthanasia legal, there are many complications related to the right not being implemented efficiently. Many doctors may take advantage of the right, many euthanasias are performed on people who did not even request euthanasia with reasons such as It was too much 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 judgment 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 against  euthanasia 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 is being condemned to suffering. If a patient is capable of requesting euthanasia they are also capable of committing suicide. People do have the power to commit suicide. If the patient does not have the means 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 personally 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 need 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 law will allocate a surrogate to that patient which can make decisions for th e patient. If the patient is not capable of requesting euthanasia then the patient may not be able to commit suicide without assistance. But 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 think that euthanasia is needed so patients wont be forced to remain alive by being hooked up to machines. But the law already permits patients or their surrogates to withhold or withdraw unwanted 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 means 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 people 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.)

Free College Essays - A Separate Peace :: A Separate Peace Essays

A Separate Peace "Holding firmly to the trunk, I took a step toward him, and then my knees bent and I jounced the limb." This is a quotation from the novel A Separate Peace, written by John Knowles. My focus in the following will be on Man's Inhumanity to Man. There is a strong relation of this to the novel for which I read. My first point which I will talk about is about Finny's tragic fall and how Gene was the cause of it. My support from the story is Finny's desire to jump from the tree. Gene said that he was coming to join him but Finny reminded him about studying. Gene's thoughts on the matter were, "He had never been jealous of me for a second. Now I knew that there never was and never could have been any rivalry between us, I couldn't stand this." My second support is Gene's actions leading to the accident. He took a step toward the trunk, put his knees and jounced the limb. Thus, Finny lost his balance and tumbled to the ground. My third support goes back to the scene of the accident after Gene watches Finny fall. And he thinks to himself, "It was the first clumsy physical action I had ever seen him make." More less, this is a sign of pride within Gene as he watches the good athlete, Finny fall out of the tree. My second point is on the scene where Brinker brings Finny and Gene to the mock trial to let everyone know the real truth about the cause of the accident. In other words, it was a way of blasting away Gene and shoving his reputation as a respected individual into the ground. My support from the story is when Brinker and three acquaintances come into Gene and Finny's dorm and pull them out. After they entered the Assembly Room, Brinker remarks, "You see how Finny limps." This phrase was the beginning of his plan to set the truth loose, or primarily break the friendship link between Finny and Gene. Brinker chose the Assembly Room as the setting for this trial since there is nothing humorous about the place. It is a place which would be terrible for Gene's sake to talk about the cause of the accident.

Wizard of Oz Political Allegory

â€Å"There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home†, repeated Dorothy. A young girl trying to go back home to Kansas after a cyclone lands her and her dog, Toto, in the Land of Oz. There Dorothy meets the Scarecrow, the TinMan, and the Cowardly Lion who are all in need of something that is considered important to them; a brain, a heart, and courage. Along the way, they have to travel to Emerald City to see the Wizard of Oz, directed by the Good Witch of the North, especially for Dorothy to get back home.However, Dorothy and the gang run into problems with the Wicked Witch of the West, who wants Dorothy’s ruby slippers (which was originally the Wicked Witch of the East shoes). In America, in the late 1890’s, the Populist Movement was in full throttle. Populism is â€Å"government of, for, and by the people†. The Populist Party was a political party, which was a collection of various social groups ag ainst monopolies and the rich. In these social groups, included poor white farmers from the South; wheat farmers in the Mid-Western states such as Kansas, Nebraska; African- Americans; and Northern factory workers.These oppressed groups naturally didn’t agree with banks, railroads and the rich. The Populist Movement relates to the Wizard of Oz because it portrays the people of these places as fools because some actually do listen to these presidents who really don’t have the American people best interest at heart. Also, the events that occurred during the Populist Movement involving farmers, their hardships, oppressed workers, and politics mirrored Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tinman, and the Cowardly Lion. Therefore, this shows how the Wizard of Oz proves to be a political parable.In the text, Dorothy is a young girl who is always laughing and playing with her dog, Toto. She lives in the dry, Great Plains of Kansas with her Aunt Em and Uncle Henry, who is a farmer. The y live in a rundown looking house, and all around them was dull and grey. Dorothy represented an everyday women living in Kansas, just living a normal life during this time period. She also represents their values as well. Auntie Em and Uncle Henry show the everyday farmer. In the historical content, they portray the farmer who works day in and day out, but not seeing any benefits from their farming.In the book, a cyclone appears to come and takes Dorothy and Toto to this magical land named the Land of Oz. It turns out Dorothy’s house landed and killed the Wicked Witch of the East. The cyclone is supposed to represent the Populist Movement and the political upheaval it brought involving William Jennings Bryan, and the Granger movement. The cyclone could also represent a Silverite victory, when the Senate adopted a bill that prohibited the government from issuing money bonds without the consent of the Congress. It was basically to stop the government from using only gold at ti mes.During this time, farmers were suffering from issues involving supply and demand. They were making more and more of wheat/grain but the value of it was becoming less and less. They were receiving less money for their goods. They wanted money to be both silver and gold so it can be easy for farmers, and workers to make the same money, and have the rich make their money. The Land of Oz is a utopia where there was color, flowers, beauty, and birds singing in the tree. In the Land of Oz, lived Munchkins. They were supposed to represent other average American workers as well.When the Wicked Witch of the East died, they were freed of oppression. The Wicked Witch of the East represented factories and industrialized settings. Many of the farmers from the West blamed their problems on the wealthy and industry. Later on in the text, Dorothy meets the Good Witch of the North. The Good Witch represents a Northern electorate who had supported populism. The Good Witch sends Dorothy to go to t he Wizard of Oz, down the yellow brick road to Emerald City, who has the power to send her back to Kansas.The Good Witch also gives Dorothy the silver shoes, which also serves as protection. This can relate to the Bimetalism vs. Gold Standard. I say this because Dorothy shoes are silver and she is sent to go down the yellow brick road, which can be seen as gold bricks. This can be known as gold money. In this time, it was clear that silver vs. gold was important to the farmers involving the economy. The silver was supposed to be available for the working class, and would increase the amount of money for the working class. In the text, Dorothy meets the Scarecrow, the Tinman, and the Cowardly Lion.The Scarecrow represents the western farmers, and how their hardships and troubles from inflation caused them to have doubts and problems with their money. The Tinman represents the American worker who mostly has populist views. He also represents how the worker felt dehumanized and was hel pless. In addition to this, the Wicked Witch of the East put a spell on him that every time he swung his axe, he would chop a piece of him off. This would make his body smaller, in relation to his work being minimized by the government.The Cowardly Lion represents William Jennings Bryan. He supported the free silver movement. Bryan had a large impact during the Populist movement and fought for the rights of the common people. He wanted to make silver available as money for the working class, and not only support the industry and the rich. Together, all four of them took the yellow brick road to Emerald City. Emerald City represents Washington, D. C. The city is green and stands for money, and the economy. The green spectacles could be used as propaganda to cloud American people mind.When they get to the Wizard, he is a powerful and majestic character that seems to hold many powers. He orders Dorothy and the rest to kill the Wicked Witch of the West and bring back her broomstick. In the text they go through many obstacles due to the Wicked Witch. Soon after Dorothy, kills the Witch with water. It shows that the Wicked Witch of the West represents the untamed, and dry, drought plains in the West. When they returned back to the Wizard of Oz to bring back the broomstick, it was revealed that the Wizard was a regular, ordinary man, who really didn’t hold great power like his title.He represents a president, presumably from Grant to McKinley. It shows he fooled people into thinking he’s something that he’s not. He helps the scarecrow, the tinman, and the cowardly lion by giving them a brain, a heart, and courage. At the end of the story, it showed the wizard provide objects of self-illusion to clearly make the scarecrow, the tinman, and the lion feel better about themselves. The Good Witch of the South tells Dorothy that all along she had what it takes to go home, and by tapping her shoes three times she was able to go home.The fact that they ha d to have a â€Å"wizard† â€Å"fix† them and then at the end for Dorothy to lose her silver shoes showed that in the beginning, populism was strong but after the election of 1896, McKinley won, the issue of silver decreased. In conclusion, this story showed that the characters and events depicted in the text relate to American history. It showed problems with American society, economy, and politics. It therefore shows in some way that this is a political parable.

Speaking of the French Calendar

A most basic topic of conversation, apart from the weather, is the time we live in—the day, the month, the season, the year. We mark time, literally, by the words for these signposts. So anyone seeking to speak French, or any other language, will want to know how to speak of such basic demarcations. Days of the Week Lets begin with the days of the week,  les  jours de la semaine.  The French week begins on Monday  so thats where well start. Note that the names of the days are not capitalized unless they start a sentence. lundi   Mondaymardi   Tuesdaymercredi Wednesdayjeudi Thursdayvendredi Fridaysamedi Saturdaydimanche Sunday The Definite Article Le When you are discussing days of the week, use the definite article le before each name, when you are talking about something that happens repeatedly on a certain day. To make each day plural, add an s. Je vois Pierre le lundi.   I see Pierre on Mondays.Nous travaillions le samedi.   We used to work on Saturdays.On y va tous les mercredis matin / soir. (NB: Matin  and soir here are adverbs and so dont agree.) We go there every Wednesday morning / evening. If youre talking about the day of a unique event, do not use an article, nor should you use a preposition equivalent to on.   Je lai vu dimanche. (I saw him on Sunday)  Il va arriver mercredi. (Hell arrive on Wednesday). Origins of Day Names Most names for days derive from Latin names for heavenly bodies (planets, moon and sun), which in turn were based on gods names. Lundi is based on Luna, the ancient Roman moon goddess; mardi is the day of Mars, ancient Roman god of war; mercredi is named after Mercury, winged messenger of the ancient Roman gods; jeudi is devoted to Jupiter, monarch of the ancient Roman gods; vendredi is the day of Venus, ancient Roman goddess of love; samedi derives from the Latin for Sabbath; and  the last day, though named in Latin for Sol, the ancient Roman sun god, became dimanche in French based on the Latin for Lords day. Months of the Year The French names for months of the year, les mois de lannà ©e,  are based on Latin  names and ancient Roman life.  Note that months are not  capitalized  either. janvier  Ã‚  Januaryfà ©vrier  Ã‚  Februarymars  Ã‚  Marchavril  Ã‚  Aprilmai  Ã‚  Mayjuin  Ã‚  Junejuillet  Ã‚  Julyaoà »t  Ã‚  Augustseptembre  Ã‚  Septemberoctobre  Ã‚  Octobernovembre  Ã‚  Novemberdà ©cembre  Ã‚  December The Four Seasons The passing of the four seasons, les quatre saisons, has inspired many an artist. Antonio Vivaldis famed  concerto grosso may be the benchmark. These are the evocative names the French bestowed on the seasons:   le  printemps   springlà ©tà ©Ã‚   summerlautomne   autumn/falllhiver   winter Expressions related to the seasons: Attacher lundi avec mardiCe nest pas mardi gras aujourdhui.Le chassà ©-croisà © des juillettistes et des aoà »tiensEn avril, ne te dà ©couvre pas dun fil.Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps.Passer à   lheure dà ©tà ©Passer à   lheure dhiver Talking About Specific Dates Questions:   Whats the date? Quelle est la date  ?Quelle est la date aujourdhui?Quelle est la date de (la fà ªte, ton anniversaire...)?What date is (the party, your birthday...)?(You cannot say quest-ce que la date or quest-ce qui est la date, because quelle is the only to way to say what here.) Statements:In French (and in most languages),  the number must precede the month, like this: Cest  Ã‚  le  (definite article)   cardinal number  Ã‚  month   Ã‚  Ã‚  Cest le 30 octobre.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cest le 8 avril.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cest le 2 janvier. Exceptionally, the first day of the month requires an  ordinal number:  1er  or  premier for 1st or first:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Cest le premier avril.  Cest le 1er  avril.   Its the first (1st) of April.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cest le premier juillet.  Cest le 1er  juillet.   Its the first (1st) of July. For all of the above statements, you can replace Cest  with  On est  or  Nous sommes.  The meaning is essentially the same in each case and all can be translated with It is.....   Ã‚  Ã‚  On est le 30 octobre.Nous sommes le premier juillet. To include the year, add it at the end of the date:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Cest le 8 avril 2013.On est le 1er  juillet 2014.Nous sommes le 18 octobre 2012. Idiomatic calendar expression:  Tous les 36 du mois   Once in a blue moon