Intro
Overview of euthanasia
Arguments from one side
Arguments from another side
My opinions
Conclusion
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Reflection 3.1
At first when I did research about euthanasia, I was not sure where I stood on the subject, and I was not sure about how to go about writing the essay. Then I told some people about the subject, and engaged in discussion and debate with them, and my ideas about the subject came through. Still, when I had a clear point of view, from my research I did not have a clear cut essay in mind. Then as I read on about the subject, I decided to give an overview of the subject, and define it, then present arguments from both sides of the issue, and then present my opinions in the last part of the essay.
Essay 3.0
Rogerian Argument Elective Euthanasia
Euthanasia has its roots in Greek, it comes from “eu” which means good, or well and “thantos” which means death, and together they mean “good death.” (Medterms) Euthanasia or elective suicide is a highly debated topic; there are many perspectives, from ambivalent, to regarding it as a human right, to seeing it as a final act of compassion, to rejection, to seeing it as a violation of the sanctity of human life. There are also many religious people who see it as a violation of God’s will. (Case, 3)
What both sides of the debate hold in common, despite the range of viewpoints and nuances, is their great respect of life. Both sides care deeply about the lives of the individuals in question. It is very easy for one side to call into question whether the other side cares about the patients who want to be euthanized.
Because this question strikes at the very basis of what it means to be alive, and what it means to die, the subject stirs very impassioned argument. The age-old question of what happens when we die comes into play, and many very strong, and ingrained emotions and opinions come into play. These questions are thrust into the forefront of everyone’s mind in this debate, not one side any more than another.
There are many arguments against elective suicide that are not purely religious, but are born out of a genuine concern for what the future would look like if euthanasia were to be both commonplace and acceptable nation-wide.
One such argument is that if euthanizing becomes commonplace that there will be pressure on elderly people to be euthanized. Because there is such a youth-oriented culture, elderly people are looked at as dependants, and as members of a society that they cannot make any contributions to. (Death, 13) This places a pressure upon them to die quickly, and not be a burden on their families. If an elderly person lives well into very old age, their health care costs rise, there is a continual need for medical attention. Elderly people can cost more on any given procedure than a younger person, solely because of the rate at which they heal. (Death, 18)
Because of all these pressures, some people believe that if assisted suicide became both legal, and common, elderly people would start electing to be euthanized based on their not wanting to put an undue financial burden upon their family. Also people believe that the state, as well as private interests and insurance agencies, would put pressure on elderly people as a way to save costs on Medicare, as well as general healthcare costs.
Many people also have a problem, or disagree with euthanasia because many terminally ill patients can be quite depressed. After all, being in pain all the time, and knowing that you have only a year to live at the maximum is not exactly an uplifting thought. Through this the thought, “is life worth living” gets introduced into a patient’s head. Harvey M Cochinov MD and PH.D, and Leonard Schwartz LL.B, LL.M, M.D, wrote Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care, within one of the chapters, they address this issue, and say:
“After all, every patient whose death is imminent will at some point ponder the question, Is life still meaningful and worth living? Depression can influence a patient’s answer. It is thus essential that those who care for terminally ill patients are aware of depression and its influence on one’s sense of meaning and the wish to go on living, even in the face of death.” (Case, 262)
The problem that people have with this is that if someone is deeply depressed, then that will influence their decision, and it will not be fully rational and it would be an emotional decision.
There is a grey area in assisted suicide, which is called “passive euthanasia.” This is where euthanasia is enacted by withholding treatment, such as withdrawing a feeding tube, which can be brought on by a second party or do-not-resuscitate orders, which are given by the patient. These have entered the public forum quite recently, and have stirred up much debate, and legislature itself.
Because passive euthanasia is so extremely common, and because it is so close to assisted suicide, it says a lot about the industry and euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is also called “allowing to die,” (Ending, 48) it is so common that “85% of deaths in the United States that occurred in health-care institutions, including hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities, about 70% involved electively withholding some form of life-sustaining treatment.” (Ending, 48) Between 1987 and 1993 recommendations for withdrawing life-support have increased from 51% to 90%. (Ending, 49) This indicates a change of mentality from not accepting the practice to common usage of choosing the way we end life.
In the United States, besides Oregon, assisted suicide is illegal, however passive euthanasia is very widely practiced, and is quite legal. However there seems to be a blurry line between the two. For example, injecting escalating doses of morphine, which slows breathing, is accepted under passive euthanasia, solely because there is a double effect. The side effect is the thing that kills the patient, not the original intention of administering it as a painkiller. The main difference between the two ideas is “causing to die” and “allowing to die,” besides the semantics, there is a very blurry line that is crossed with frequency.
I believe that assisted suicide is no more than taking an active part in, and deciding the time and place you want to end your life. If patients have been screened for depression, have received counseling on the end of life, know the full ramifications of their actions, as much as humanly possible, and are not considering death as a way to save money, then who are we to tell them that they cannot choose when they die. Another piece of this is that patients who elect for suicide have to be terminally ill, without a possibility of living the rest of their days in relative comfort. Another very important piece is consent, the patient has to knowingly give consent without any pressure from family or also, very importantly, from doctors and caregivers.
After all the arguments are done, I don’t believe that we can fully understand what it must be like to be terminally ill and to know that the rest of your life will be spent in both pain and hospital beds. The desire to not spend the rest of your life in pain, with deteriorating organs, and the conscious decision that they want to die but with the knowledge that able-bodied people decided that you cannot end your torment.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365
Somerville, Margret A. Death Talk: The case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. McGill-Queen’s University Press 2001, Book.
Foley M.D., Kathleen and Hendin M.D., Herbert. Case against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of Life Care. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, Book.
Dowbiggin, Ian Robert. Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press 2003, Book.
Battin, M Pabst, Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die. Oxford University Press 2005, Book.
Euthanasia has its roots in Greek, it comes from “eu” which means good, or well and “thantos” which means death, and together they mean “good death.” (Medterms) Euthanasia or elective suicide is a highly debated topic; there are many perspectives, from ambivalent, to regarding it as a human right, to seeing it as a final act of compassion, to rejection, to seeing it as a violation of the sanctity of human life. There are also many religious people who see it as a violation of God’s will. (Case, 3)
What both sides of the debate hold in common, despite the range of viewpoints and nuances, is their great respect of life. Both sides care deeply about the lives of the individuals in question. It is very easy for one side to call into question whether the other side cares about the patients who want to be euthanized.
Because this question strikes at the very basis of what it means to be alive, and what it means to die, the subject stirs very impassioned argument. The age-old question of what happens when we die comes into play, and many very strong, and ingrained emotions and opinions come into play. These questions are thrust into the forefront of everyone’s mind in this debate, not one side any more than another.
There are many arguments against elective suicide that are not purely religious, but are born out of a genuine concern for what the future would look like if euthanasia were to be both commonplace and acceptable nation-wide.
One such argument is that if euthanizing becomes commonplace that there will be pressure on elderly people to be euthanized. Because there is such a youth-oriented culture, elderly people are looked at as dependants, and as members of a society that they cannot make any contributions to. (Death, 13) This places a pressure upon them to die quickly, and not be a burden on their families. If an elderly person lives well into very old age, their health care costs rise, there is a continual need for medical attention. Elderly people can cost more on any given procedure than a younger person, solely because of the rate at which they heal. (Death, 18)
Because of all these pressures, some people believe that if assisted suicide became both legal, and common, elderly people would start electing to be euthanized based on their not wanting to put an undue financial burden upon their family. Also people believe that the state, as well as private interests and insurance agencies, would put pressure on elderly people as a way to save costs on Medicare, as well as general healthcare costs.
Many people also have a problem, or disagree with euthanasia because many terminally ill patients can be quite depressed. After all, being in pain all the time, and knowing that you have only a year to live at the maximum is not exactly an uplifting thought. Through this the thought, “is life worth living” gets introduced into a patient’s head. Harvey M Cochinov MD and PH.D, and Leonard Schwartz LL.B, LL.M, M.D, wrote Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care, within one of the chapters, they address this issue, and say:
“After all, every patient whose death is imminent will at some point ponder the question, Is life still meaningful and worth living? Depression can influence a patient’s answer. It is thus essential that those who care for terminally ill patients are aware of depression and its influence on one’s sense of meaning and the wish to go on living, even in the face of death.” (Case, 262)
The problem that people have with this is that if someone is deeply depressed, then that will influence their decision, and it will not be fully rational and it would be an emotional decision.
There is a grey area in assisted suicide, which is called “passive euthanasia.” This is where euthanasia is enacted by withholding treatment, such as withdrawing a feeding tube, which can be brought on by a second party or do-not-resuscitate orders, which are given by the patient. These have entered the public forum quite recently, and have stirred up much debate, and legislature itself.
Because passive euthanasia is so extremely common, and because it is so close to assisted suicide, it says a lot about the industry and euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is also called “allowing to die,” (Ending, 48) it is so common that “85% of deaths in the United States that occurred in health-care institutions, including hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities, about 70% involved electively withholding some form of life-sustaining treatment.” (Ending, 48) Between 1987 and 1993 recommendations for withdrawing life-support have increased from 51% to 90%. (Ending, 49) This indicates a change of mentality from not accepting the practice to common usage of choosing the way we end life.
In the United States, besides Oregon, assisted suicide is illegal, however passive euthanasia is very widely practiced, and is quite legal. However there seems to be a blurry line between the two. For example, injecting escalating doses of morphine, which slows breathing, is accepted under passive euthanasia, solely because there is a double effect. The side effect is the thing that kills the patient, not the original intention of administering it as a painkiller. The main difference between the two ideas is “causing to die” and “allowing to die,” besides the semantics, there is a very blurry line that is crossed with frequency.
I believe that assisted suicide is no more than taking an active part in, and deciding the time and place you want to end your life. If patients have been screened for depression, have received counseling on the end of life, know the full ramifications of their actions, as much as humanly possible, and are not considering death as a way to save money, then who are we to tell them that they cannot choose when they die. Another piece of this is that patients who elect for suicide have to be terminally ill, without a possibility of living the rest of their days in relative comfort. Another very important piece is consent, the patient has to knowingly give consent without any pressure from family or also, very importantly, from doctors and caregivers.
After all the arguments are done, I don’t believe that we can fully understand what it must be like to be terminally ill and to know that the rest of your life will be spent in both pain and hospital beds. The desire to not spend the rest of your life in pain, with deteriorating organs, and the conscious decision that they want to die but with the knowledge that able-bodied people decided that you cannot end your torment.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365
Somerville, Margret A. Death Talk: The case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. McGill-Queen’s University Press 2001, Book.
Foley M.D., Kathleen and Hendin M.D., Herbert. Case against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of Life Care. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, Book.
Dowbiggin, Ian Robert. Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press 2003, Book.
Battin, M Pabst, Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die. Oxford University Press 2005, Book.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Reflection 2.3
Editing and correcting this paper seemed pretty easy, there was no major things I had to work on. Mostly I had to cite my sources in text, this required me to go back, and find page numbers and who said what. The most complicated part of this process was accurately and correctly putting the citations within the text. Also making sure i was citing all that I needed to cite, and not citing things that were my ideas, or paraphrasing. There were also some problems with my punctuation, but those were an easy fix. The rebuttal was a very interesting paper to write, it was nice being able to rebut a claim or an argument using the rebutting strategies.
Friday, March 25, 2011
prewriting 3.0
At first I wasn't sure what I was going to write about, and then I found an article on the New York Times about a woman who had to put her dog down because she was very old, and had suffered a stroke. This reminded me of optional suicide, which I think im going to write about.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Essay 2.2
EDITORIAL: Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to 'Huckleberry Finn' are warranted.
An editor at the Lufkin Daily News wrote an article talking about, and supporting one publishing house censoring The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The publishing house is working to replace the N-word with the word “slave.” This is a complete shame; it takes away from the meaning of the book, the social aspect, and its sacrificing freedom of expression to special interest groups’ desires.
This is a very weak argument for several reasons, for one, it lacks evidence to back up the argument, secondly the author is not named, which immediately takes away from the overall credibility of the paper. The editor makes several claims and presents their point of view as the right point of view that everyone shares, although the ideas are very controversial and widely contested. One of the major assumptions that the author makes is that people who read the uncensored Huck Finn will go around and use the N-word in a racist way.
I agree with the author that Huck Finn should be read in schools. It is an important literary work, and part of American literature. I don’t agree that the book should be read by elementary students, I think they are a bit young to fully grasp the meaning of the book, as well as the concepts brought up by the book. One of the major reasons why the book is as highly respected as it is, is that it uses language such as the N-word and other words that are now “politically incorrect,” by today’s standards, to expose how intolerant people were in that particular era. For example if Huck Finn was just another adventure story about a boy running away from his father and going north, with no attention to race, the book would have none of its power, or transcend through history as it did.
In the second paragraph the author writes: "the N-word, the one we tell our kids, and ourselves, is never appropriate to use" [Editorial]. This statement by the author is completely subjective, and varies person-to-person. There is a major debate currently about whether this word should be used so the meaning changes to have a positive meaning, or whether it should be taboo, and never spoken because of the history behind it. The editor wrote the article with the mindset that this word should never be spoken, and with no acknowledgement as to the debate surrounding the word.
The editor goes on to assume that people don't want their children reading the word, or knowing that it even exists. However education about the word, and teaching kids about the history and full impact of the word is certainly a more effective way to deal with racism. It is much better than ignoring that word and history behind it exist all together.
Ever since Mark Twain wrote the book Huckleberry Finn there has been mush controversy about it. He had to make his own publishing company in order to publish the book. When it was released it was immediately banned, and censored. However Twain himself said that the fact that the book was banned and censored would make more people buy it, and read it in a way that they would otherwise never read the book. (Banned, 190)
Over and over there have been calls to ban this book, whether it’s parents who are uncomfortable with how gritty it is, or people who are offended by the language, or religious groups, or groups committed to social change. For example in Indiana in 1997 a reverend named Charles Sims and about 20 other people went to a school meeting to try and remove Huckleberry Finn from the high school reading list. They felt that the book was “degrading, insensitive, and oppressive” (Banned, 191 ) to black students. However all of the English teachers stood up for the book and collectively kept the book on the shelves and on the reading list.
People have stood up for the book throughout the ages, including English teachers, principles, and authors. Ernest Hemingway, H.L. Menken and T.S. Elliot are but a few famous authors who proclaim Twain’s books as important and necessary books. Hemingway says that: “All modern American Literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn…the best book we’ve ever had.” T.S. Elliot said: Mark Twain is “The true father of our national literature.” (Banned, 190). If these important literary masters hail Huckleberry Finn as possibly the most important recent literary work as well as it’s profound impact on them, then we as readers should grasp the full impact, and meaning that this book holds without making the book bland.
In the end of the book Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury talks about his personal experience with censorship in terms of his book. He makes very bold statements about dropping even a single word from a story, which flies directly in the face of what the editor of, Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to 'Huckleberry Finn' are warranted, is advocating. Bradbury says: “Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme” (Language, 158). This is quite a pointed attack on the viewpoint of the Editor who is for censoring the book, especially coming from an author who’s book centers around censorship.
Diane Ravitch, a Research Professor of Education at New York University, talks about how censoring a word, or book so that it is “safe” and not out of the ordinary, is abhorrent. She says: “Censorship distorts the literature curriculum, substituting political judgments for aesthetic ones.” She states that the school system is becoming “ an island of censorship in a sea of freedom.” (Language, 160)
The fundamental problem with the argument to censor Huckleberry Finn is that it is based on people disliking the N-word. However, there is some word or phrase that would offend anybody, different words for different people of course. But Mark Twain was not using this word to intentionally offend anyone; he was using it to teach readers that this word is very discriminatory. His intentions were to teach people about history so that we would not make the same mistakes, and repeat the same actions as those before us. He did not want us to be ignorant of how things were, he wanted to provide the context in which to situate our modern life. For without knowing the context of where we are in the world how can we presume to move forward as caring and intelligent human beings?
Works Cited:
Language Police: How Pressure Groups restrict What Students Learn Ravitch, Diane. Knopf Publishing Group. 2004 Print.
Banned in the USA, Foerstel, Herbert N. Greenwood Press, 2002, Print.
EDITORIAL: Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted, Lufkin Daily News, January 6, 2011. Print
An editor at the Lufkin Daily News wrote an article talking about, and supporting one publishing house censoring The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The publishing house is working to replace the N-word with the word “slave.” This is a complete shame; it takes away from the meaning of the book, the social aspect, and its sacrificing freedom of expression to special interest groups’ desires.
This is a very weak argument for several reasons, for one, it lacks evidence to back up the argument, secondly the author is not named, which immediately takes away from the overall credibility of the paper. The editor makes several claims and presents their point of view as the right point of view that everyone shares, although the ideas are very controversial and widely contested. One of the major assumptions that the author makes is that people who read the uncensored Huck Finn will go around and use the N-word in a racist way.
I agree with the author that Huck Finn should be read in schools. It is an important literary work, and part of American literature. I don’t agree that the book should be read by elementary students, I think they are a bit young to fully grasp the meaning of the book, as well as the concepts brought up by the book. One of the major reasons why the book is as highly respected as it is, is that it uses language such as the N-word and other words that are now “politically incorrect,” by today’s standards, to expose how intolerant people were in that particular era. For example if Huck Finn was just another adventure story about a boy running away from his father and going north, with no attention to race, the book would have none of its power, or transcend through history as it did.
In the second paragraph the author writes: "the N-word, the one we tell our kids, and ourselves, is never appropriate to use" [Editorial]. This statement by the author is completely subjective, and varies person-to-person. There is a major debate currently about whether this word should be used so the meaning changes to have a positive meaning, or whether it should be taboo, and never spoken because of the history behind it. The editor wrote the article with the mindset that this word should never be spoken, and with no acknowledgement as to the debate surrounding the word.
The editor goes on to assume that people don't want their children reading the word, or knowing that it even exists. However education about the word, and teaching kids about the history and full impact of the word is certainly a more effective way to deal with racism. It is much better than ignoring that word and history behind it exist all together.
Ever since Mark Twain wrote the book Huckleberry Finn there has been mush controversy about it. He had to make his own publishing company in order to publish the book. When it was released it was immediately banned, and censored. However Twain himself said that the fact that the book was banned and censored would make more people buy it, and read it in a way that they would otherwise never read the book. (Banned, 190)
Over and over there have been calls to ban this book, whether it’s parents who are uncomfortable with how gritty it is, or people who are offended by the language, or religious groups, or groups committed to social change. For example in Indiana in 1997 a reverend named Charles Sims and about 20 other people went to a school meeting to try and remove Huckleberry Finn from the high school reading list. They felt that the book was “degrading, insensitive, and oppressive” (Banned, 191 ) to black students. However all of the English teachers stood up for the book and collectively kept the book on the shelves and on the reading list.
People have stood up for the book throughout the ages, including English teachers, principles, and authors. Ernest Hemingway, H.L. Menken and T.S. Elliot are but a few famous authors who proclaim Twain’s books as important and necessary books. Hemingway says that: “All modern American Literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn…the best book we’ve ever had.” T.S. Elliot said: Mark Twain is “The true father of our national literature.” (Banned, 190). If these important literary masters hail Huckleberry Finn as possibly the most important recent literary work as well as it’s profound impact on them, then we as readers should grasp the full impact, and meaning that this book holds without making the book bland.
In the end of the book Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury talks about his personal experience with censorship in terms of his book. He makes very bold statements about dropping even a single word from a story, which flies directly in the face of what the editor of, Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to 'Huckleberry Finn' are warranted, is advocating. Bradbury says: “Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme” (Language, 158). This is quite a pointed attack on the viewpoint of the Editor who is for censoring the book, especially coming from an author who’s book centers around censorship.
Diane Ravitch, a Research Professor of Education at New York University, talks about how censoring a word, or book so that it is “safe” and not out of the ordinary, is abhorrent. She says: “Censorship distorts the literature curriculum, substituting political judgments for aesthetic ones.” She states that the school system is becoming “ an island of censorship in a sea of freedom.” (Language, 160)
The fundamental problem with the argument to censor Huckleberry Finn is that it is based on people disliking the N-word. However, there is some word or phrase that would offend anybody, different words for different people of course. But Mark Twain was not using this word to intentionally offend anyone; he was using it to teach readers that this word is very discriminatory. His intentions were to teach people about history so that we would not make the same mistakes, and repeat the same actions as those before us. He did not want us to be ignorant of how things were, he wanted to provide the context in which to situate our modern life. For without knowing the context of where we are in the world how can we presume to move forward as caring and intelligent human beings?
Works Cited:
Language Police: How Pressure Groups restrict What Students Learn Ravitch, Diane. Knopf Publishing Group. 2004 Print.
Banned in the USA, Foerstel, Herbert N. Greenwood Press, 2002, Print.
EDITORIAL: Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted, Lufkin Daily News, January 6, 2011. Print
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Works Cited
Works Cited:
Language Police: How Pressure Groups restrict What Students Learn Ravitch, Diane. Knopf Publishing Group. 2004 Print.
Banned in the USA, Foerstel, Herbert N. Greenwood Press, 2002, Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)