Download Euthanasia: A Means to An EndPHI103: Informal LogicMany peop and more Lecture notes Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! Euthanasia: A Means to An End 1 Euthanasia: A Means to An End PHI103: Informal Logic Many people may argue that the intentional cause of death is immoral and/or unethical; however, incertain cases, active voluntary euthanasia is moral and should be a given rightActive voluntaryeuthanasia is the practice of intentionally administering medications to cause a patient’s death, atthe patient’s request, with full, informed consent (Onwuteaka, 1997). This paper will explore both sides of the delicate topic: Is it physician assisted suicide moral or immoral/ ethical Euthanasia: A Means to An End 2 or unethical. This paper will also explore each argument to evaluate the quality of the reasoning of each perspective, this time, with scholarly resources. Article Against Euthanasia Thisarticle was the most unbiased scholarly source I can find while searching for arguments against euthanasia, specifically not in a religious perspective. The article is provided by ncbi.gov, which is a popular National Center for Biotechnology Information and is a part of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. The article contains several arguments and stances against euthanasia, as well as doctor’s perspectives and consensus views. Here are key premises from several stances, such as, ethical and practical: Premise 1:Life has unlimited value, and euthanasia devalues life and is offensive since humans share the value of life(Sulmasy, Travaline, Mitchell, & Ely, 2016) Premise 2: Euthanasia is a slippery slope. Once legal, it gives anyone any or no reason to be euthanized(2016). Premise 3: Pain can be alleviated(2016). Premise 4: Euthanasia is contradicting to physician/patient relationship i.e. patient wishes to be well; physician helps.(2016). Conclusion: Euthanasia is unethical. Evaluation of the Quality of the Argument Against Euthanasia The argumentsexpressed are concrete andcohesive. The first premise explains that life is precious and that is offensive to other human beings striving to live. After all, humans are Euthanasia: A Means to An End 5 arguments to contrast their own. This allows the target audience to really be anyone wishing to seek greater understanding of physician assisted suicide. The non-scholarly, while making good points, are not the best sources to use. With both being sources primarily for news, the information is merely being reported on, not necessarily gathered. For the source against euthanasia, there was no author to be credited, so the viewer does not know the credibility of the information gathered. The source in favor of euthanasia is written by a professional of the field but lacks any form of sources to validate any claims. A lack of a credible author against and lack of sources in favor of create fallacies in both of the non- scholarly arguments. Conclusion Naturally, when studying and reviewing a topic such as this, a topic that questions on the philosophy of life in its subjective and medical form, scholarly sources will be preferable. More than likely, when researches in non-scholarly context, a researcher will stumble upon a writer’s opinion, rather than qualitative data. I for one will certainly prefer scholarly over non-scholarly, especially to study such a delicate question and to remain unbiased. References: Harris, D., Richard, B., & Khanna, P. (2006, August). Assisted Dying: The Ongoing Debate. Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585714/ Euthanasia: A Means to An End 6 Onwuteaka, B. D., Muller, M. T., van der Wal, G., van Eijk, J. T., & Ribbe, M. W. (1997,October). Active voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide? Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9329482 Sulmasy, D., Travaline, J., Mitchell, L., & Ely, E. (2016, August). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102187/
