A Critique Of Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Who Is The Enemy?'

917 Words 4 Pages
“Who is the Enemy?” is a thought provoking article written by Marie-Eileen Onieal, a nurse practitioner (NP), and Randy Danielsen, a physician assistant (PA), which discusses the prevalent negative view of their professions. The writers defend their occupations while explaining that health care professionals should focus on bettering health care rather than discrediting each other. The article appears in Clinician Reviews, a publication directed to update NPs and PAs with health care news. By explaining the biases against their professions and proving these inclinations illogical, Onieal and Danielsen successfully explain that PAs and NPs should ignore these negative opinions and concentrate on their contributions to health care. The article …show more content…
The writers introduce facts that infer physicians are not much better than PAs and NPs. The writers point out the studies they use are produced by “nonbiased authors” and “concluded that the quality of care provided by NPs and PAs is comparable to that given by physicians” (Onieal & Danielsen). After the authors use facts to prove unfavorable opinions inaccurate, they explain how PAs and NPs have done a service to health care that people should not ignore. The writers also appeal to ethos by explaining that health professionals should focus on working together rather than working against each other. This greatly attributes to the writers who suggest being magnanimous rather than spiteful. They add their thesis at the end stating the “bottom line” is all health care professionals need to rid their negative views of each and work together. Adding their thesis at the end efficiently introduces the transition that the writer wants the PAs and NPs to take in life. After being enraged by being criticized, the writers suggest that the NPs and PAs reject the views and target the critical issue. As the reader views proving statistics that their occupations are critical for health care, they are more accepting to the writers’ proposal to ignore any pessimistic judgments. The writers take this opportunity to explain the purpose …show more content…
Although most of the article is meant to show how PAs and NPs are negatively viewed and how these views are flawed, it contains an important transition by focusing on what health professionals should see as more important: the patient. In many ways, it proves the authors’ professionalism that the sources of the negativity seem to lack. In health care, it is important to focus on the patient rather than the reputation of one’s job, which is what the authors seem to be proving by this statement. The authors were able to dismiss the negative views of their professions and successfully explain that this is not what their main focus should

Related Documents