Assisted suicide, is it wrong?
I am going to compare two texts on the topic of assisted suicide. These texts were both chosen even though they both represent the same side of the argument, they cover the topic in an almost entirely different manner.
The first article is titled “Euthenasia: the right to die can easily become the duty to die.” and was published to the mirror.co.uk (a news paper). Article two is called “assisted dying - execution by doctor” and was obtained from spiked-online.com which is an online magazine.
Article 1 is written to persuade those with an uncertain opinion on assisted suicide as it attempts to persuade the reader. It also reinforces the views of anyone who already agrees with the article. It was intended for …show more content…
The article was clearly intended for those who believe that all life is the same and that death by any means unnatural is morally and objectively wrong, this is made clear by the articles repeated comparison of assisted suicide to the death penalty. However unlike article 1 i would not consider this article as a means for those to “confirm” their own opinion with as it seems to exist solely to reinforce the opinions of those whose agree strongly with the authors already.
The first articles main point is that allowing assisted suicide could put enormous pressure on the disabled and elderly to seek out suicide to an alternative to being a “burden” on society and those around them. “The right to die, in other words can so easily become the duty to die.” The article also repeatedly states that the current blanket ban does not need changed as allowing even a small number of only extreme cases would eventually lead to an “inevitable incremental extension to …show more content…
“How can anyone who opposes the death penalty support assisted dying” The article goes on to state that the death penalty and assisted dying both exist as a method of alleviating the suffering of those who are ill in the case of assisted dying, or the grieving families in the case of the death penalty. “Is the suffering of these victims of horrendous crimes any less legitimate than the suffering of those with less than six months left to live?”
Article 2 has a more complex writing style than article 1, at times attempting to mimic arguments with those who have different views to the author “Hold on a second, an advocate of assisted suicide might say - doesn't assisted have have the aim of reducing suffering? Perhaps.” It is due to this along with the way the article drags on and has very little content that argues or informs the reader, seemingly relying heavily on the reader having some kind of moral epiphany while they are reading it. It is for these reasons that article 2 should be considered an almost complete failure in the terms of it’s own
I am going to compare two texts on the topic of assisted suicide. These texts were both chosen even though they both represent the same side of the argument, they cover the topic in an almost entirely different manner.
The first article is titled “Euthenasia: the right to die can easily become the duty to die.” and was published to the mirror.co.uk (a news paper). Article two is called “assisted dying - execution by doctor” and was obtained from spiked-online.com which is an online magazine.
Article 1 is written to persuade those with an uncertain opinion on assisted suicide as it attempts to persuade the reader. It also reinforces the views of anyone who already agrees with the article. It was intended for …show more content…
The article was clearly intended for those who believe that all life is the same and that death by any means unnatural is morally and objectively wrong, this is made clear by the articles repeated comparison of assisted suicide to the death penalty. However unlike article 1 i would not consider this article as a means for those to “confirm” their own opinion with as it seems to exist solely to reinforce the opinions of those whose agree strongly with the authors already.
The first articles main point is that allowing assisted suicide could put enormous pressure on the disabled and elderly to seek out suicide to an alternative to being a “burden” on society and those around them. “The right to die, in other words can so easily become the duty to die.” The article also repeatedly states that the current blanket ban does not need changed as allowing even a small number of only extreme cases would eventually lead to an “inevitable incremental extension to …show more content…
“How can anyone who opposes the death penalty support assisted dying” The article goes on to state that the death penalty and assisted dying both exist as a method of alleviating the suffering of those who are ill in the case of assisted dying, or the grieving families in the case of the death penalty. “Is the suffering of these victims of horrendous crimes any less legitimate than the suffering of those with less than six months left to live?”
Article 2 has a more complex writing style than article 1, at times attempting to mimic arguments with those who have different views to the author “Hold on a second, an advocate of assisted suicide might say - doesn't assisted have have the aim of reducing suffering? Perhaps.” It is due to this along with the way the article drags on and has very little content that argues or informs the reader, seemingly relying heavily on the reader having some kind of moral epiphany while they are reading it. It is for these reasons that article 2 should be considered an almost complete failure in the terms of it’s own