Unspeakable Conversation Summary

Improved Essays
“Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet McBryde Johnson and “An Animal's Place” by Michael Pollan are both amazing stories about life and death. With the question, to what extent is it possible to define what makes a “good life” for humans and other animals, it’s difficult to find the right answer if there is one. There is no doubt that animals don’t have rights in the traditional sense, or in any other sense. Should we live with the same concept for humans born with mental illnesses? Singer’s arguments are strong but though some illnesses may lead to a person being stuck in a vegetable state of mind, we must understand that anything is possible in this day and time. With a great deal of effort and support, their lives may change but who are …show more content…
Since they lack the ability to reason, they can’t have rights so they aren’t responsible. Does that make it acceptable to treats animals badly? Of course not; but animals can’t decide their fate so the humans must decide for them. In "An Animal's Place," Michael Pollan introduces Peter Singer's argument, which is both difficult, and simple to argue against. Based on equality, people realize they aren’t equal at all: "Some are smarter than others, more gifted, and better looking.” The point is that "…everyone's interests should receive equal consideration, regardless of what abilities they may possess” (Pollan). This is where the problems and questions actually begin. If one person is smarter than the others and uses another person for his own cause, then how can we avoid using animals for the exact same …show more content…
Bewildered and rather defensive, Beth attempts to figure out why she chose to handle herself the way she did. When Beth refers to Singer advocating genocide and her panic towards the thought of his philosophy being correct, Johnson states that “his talk won't matter in the end”. Johnson then states that Singer “doesn’t propose killing anyone who prefers to live.” Beth replies by saying, “So what if that view wins out, but you can’t break disability prejudice? What if you wind up in a world where the disabled person’s ‘irrational’ preference to live must yield to society’s ‘rational’ interest in reducing the incidence of disability? Doesn’t horror kick in somewhere? Maybe as you watch the door close behind whoever has wheeled you into the gas chamber?” Johnson, being very well aware that this has happened in the past, is left with nothing but her belief. She questions if she’s clinging to foolish hope and “that the tragic protagonist, this one time, will shift course before it's too late” (Johnson), knowing that belief and hope would not do much justice.

In conclusion, death is final. For some it’s a natural and peaceful, while others have to put up with an immense amount of pain to get there. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. There’s many arguments supporting it such as letting people die with dignity

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    On the article “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals should be treated humanely because, according to science, the differences between animals and humans are less than what we think. He believes that animals should be given the rights that protect them from inhumane treatment and human consumption. He is telling us that we have to give them the same rights that a human possesses. In affirmation to Jeremy Rifkin, we should treat animals humanely because they also have a heart that can feel pain and a brain that can think.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The word euthanasia derives from greek origins that translates to ‘good death’. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines euthanasia as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. The controversy surrounding euthanasia stems from whether an individual with a disability is able to make the choice to put an end to their life. It is difficult to establish whether the individual has a rational state of mind. Philosophical theories of morality and rationality can be applied to an individual’s right to death with dignity.…

    • 1961 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As the wise man Edward Freeman once said, “These awful wrongs and sufferings forced upon the innocent, helpless, faithful animal race, form the blackest chapter in the whole world’s history.” In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin discusses that animals are no different than humans. Being no different than humans means that someone or something is similar to a human being because of either their characteristics or similar body parts. Animals are like humans in the way that they are intelligent, affectionate, and skillful. Animals learn by their behavior as well as humans, however, the only difference is many animals are brutally abused.…

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is no doubting the fact that animals do not have rights in the conventional sense, or in any other sense for that matter. The reason is because they are not moral agents; they cannot do things out of a sense of right or wrong and cannot reason, as opposed to humans. Without reasoning, they are unable to have rights and therefore, are not responsible. Does that mean humans have the right to treat animals badly? Of course not; but that is for humans to decide, because animals cannot decide anything.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Bryan Cruz Ms. Jacobs ERWC Period 4 October 5 2015 Animal Rights Over the years of humankind, humans have always treated animals badly because people think of animals lower than them, but it has been shown that they’re much different than us and even Jeremy Rifkin explains that in “A Change of Hearts about Animals”. Animals are more like people than they first thought and should see why. It has been proven that animals have emotions like us and feel sad or happy. Animals also have shown their intelligence in tests that has changed our views in how they solve problems. They also have to be taught things that they never knew, just like humans.…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The recent deaths of Fernando, Maria, Martin and Elisa Manrique has caused much controversy and discussion in regards to euthanasia. Claire Harvey’s saddened opinion piece “This wasn’t a murder-suicide. It was cold-blooded murder” contends that Fernando Manrique “had no right to kill” his family and himself, as “autism and disability are not justifications for murder”. Adopting a dismissive tone, Harvey belittles opinions that their deaths are due to “disability” or of “the tale of a man driven to despair by society’s failure to help him”, with the hope that the audience will reconsider their own opinions.…

    • 205 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While non-human animals devote most of their time to satisfy instinctual needs, humans have the ability to write intricate pieces of literary fiction or thinking about what party candidate best represents their ideology and social needs. Why should we extend the principle of equality to non-human animals if there are a plethora of differences between the humankind and other species? Peter Singer argues that there “is no barrier to the case of extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals” (Singer, 1989, p. 149), for the differences between humans and other animals can be addressed by providing different treatment and rights to the needs of each group. When Singer says that we need to extend the basic principle of equality, he specifies that he will consider this principle to be equality of consideration. What the author means is that we ought not to give greater weight to the interests of one group over…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    "Just as I shall select my ship when I am about to go on a voyage, or my house when I propose to take a residence, so I shall choose my death when I am about to depart from life. " I wanted to start this essay with this quote from Seneca qua encloses the main principle that I sustain regarding this subject, which is the principle of autonomy. But before I express my view I would like to briefly introduce the topic. What does euthanasia mean?…

    • 1182 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Claire Conroy, a woman suffering from end stages of dementia, robbed of her right to choose voluntary euthanasia. She had other health issues including heart disease, high blood pressure, gangrene in her leg, bedsores, and was unable to talk. She could not control her bladder or bowels, and was only able to moan, scratch, and sometime smile if someone was combing her hair. Claire had not gotten to exercise her right to die. She died a slow and painful death, suffering from infection and dementia.…

    • 1374 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Sherika Sinclair Period 7 Final edit Euthanasia is the act of helping end a person's life to relieve suffering. There are solid debates on whether to make euthanasia legal in the United States. It is a way to help end the prolonged suffering of patients who are terminally ill or in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia should become legal because it will end suffering, it is less expensive, people should have the right to end their life, no one should be forced to stay alive, and the government should not have the right over people’s lives.…

    • 1395 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Euthanasia is when you kill someone out of mercy or to stop them from suffering. In Australia it is currently illegal to kill someone out of mercy. But euthanasia should be legalised. People are living their lives with unbearable pain, they have the right to die peacefully and painlessly. It is a person’s choice if they want to suffer or not it is not immoral to end someone’s pain.…

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As we have seen, animals have more in common with humans than previously thought. They are able to use higher-level functions such as memory that were previously believed that only people could use. However, some would argue that only some animal species have this, and that there should be a ranking system of what animals should receive moral standing. Karen Davis mentioned in her article, The Provocative Elitism of “Personhood” for Nonhuman Creatures in Animal Advocacy Parlance and Polemics, “ranking animals according to a cognitive scale of intelligence is an aspect of cross-species comparisons that should be avoided” (Davis).…

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why Is Euthanasia Wrong

    • 608 Words
    • 3 Pages

    What is euthanasia? It is killing a person that might live might be able to see their families again or might be able to have a family. Euthanasia is assisted suicide through a doctor with medication. I think that is wrong to kill a person that might be able to leave longer than the doctors say. Think about all of the people that could die everyday because of a little drug.…

    • 608 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.” states Peter Singer, as he speaks for animal liberation. Surely that makes sense? The debate is on whether or not animals are of the same or of a lesser moral importance than humans, wearying many people who have been bombarded with all the viewpoints. Yet, the situation is, for me very simple: if we are foolish enough to believe that any animals other than humans are not as important or superior, we can be deemed as morally corrupt in thinking so.…

    • 1271 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Euthanasia, also known as death with honor or dignity is used to help patients who are suffering from a disease that cannot be cured. When doctors see no hope of cure in a patient’s health, the treatment becomes too painful euthanasia helps, in euthanasia doctors can drug the patient suffering with lethal and put them to sleep.. It is every human’s natural right to decide whether they wish to live or die, especially in the situation where there is no hope for cure. Legalizing Euthanasia can put an end to miserable sufferings of patients in need. It is a way to reduce further treatments that do not guarantee cure and rather cause more pain to the patient.…

    • 1301 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays