Overview: In this assignment, you will write a reflection essay that explores how you chose to incorporate feedback on your argument, your exploration of the issue, and your source integration in the persuasive essay, as well as how your incorporation of resources supported your claim. Additionally, you will note any challenges you faced in incorporating resources and developing your argument throughout the writing process.

Prompt: Previously, you identified an issue in your current major, a major you are interested in pursuing, or your field of work. You then established an argument and supported that argument with research and relevant evidence. In this assignment, you will reflect on how you chose to incorporate feedback concerning your argument, your exploration of the issue, and your integration of sources. Additionally, you will note any challenges you faced in incorporating resources and developing your argument throughout the writing process.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

  1. Reflection: Each response should be one fully developed paragraph in length (5–8 sentences).
    1. What peer-review feedback did you choose to incorporate concerning your argument and why?
    2. What challenges did you face in developing your argument? What could you have done differently?
    3. What peer-review feedback did you choose to incorporate concerning your exploration of the issue and why?
    4. What peer-review feedback did you choose to incorporate concerning your effective source integration and why?
    5. What writing strategies were most effective in supporting your argument, given your audience, subject, and purpose?

Guidelines for Submission: Save your work in a Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. 

Running head: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS) 1

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS) 6

            

An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)


An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)

The right of a terminally ill person to get assisted-suicide remains contentious, with assisted-suicide drawing diverse opinions across various States. Proponents argue on the basis that it is a right for human beings while the opponents argue on ethical reasons and religious perspectives. If one feels that there is no quality of life left, is it legal to end life at that point? This is a controversial question that has not been settled by many across the United States because of the moral aspect attached to it. I think that the life of a person should remain sacred and no one has the right to end except the creator, thus, in this discussion, I will argue against physician-assisted suicide and should not be legalized. Also, I will empty my arguments about why I feel this act should not be legalized by presenting research-based arguments to support this claim. As well, I will discuss opposing arguments accompanied by examples. Additionally, I will react and invalidate the counter-contention dependent on my research carried to show why I feel that my thesis is right.

Both the patient and the physician are involved in facilitating the act of PAS since the patient out of goodwill accepts to take lethal medicines that will result in death. In 1997, the state of Oregon became the first state globally to legalize PAS under the authorization of Doctor Jack Kevorkian who created the procedure. Doctor Jack Kevorkian introduced PAS intending to remove the suffering and pain of the chronically ill patient by killing them mercifully. At some point, some patients requested PAS after feeling their life is no longer bearable. I feel PAS does not value life as a gift from God, and terminating one’s life through PAS is unacceptable and should never at one point become legal.

There exist a vast difference when a terminally ill person dies naturally, and when any form of death assistance comes into play. Various researches provide immense evidence showing how those requesting for the PAS are ambivalent about it. As indicated by Emanuel et al (2016), “once PAS is ratified legal, it is anticipated that patients will undergo a period of subtle stress when adapting bearing in mind their parents and friends are suffering due to heavy medical bills that continue to count.” The group that goes for the PAS believes that, once they die, some stress-related issues will be alleviated.

Many reasons make people choose PAS


Lorryn Tardy – critique to my persuasive essay

For this assignment I’ll be workshopping the work of Lisa Oll-Adikankwu. Lisa has chosen the topic of Assisted Suicide; she is against the practice and argues that it should be considered unethical and universally illegal.

 

Lisa appears to have a good understanding of the topic. Her sources are well researched and discuss a variety of key points from seemingly unbiased sources. Her sources are current, peer reviewed and based on statistical data.

 

Lisa’s summaries are well written, clear and concise. One thing I noticed is that the majority of her writing plan is summarized and cited at the end of each paragraph. I might suggest that she integrate more synthesis of the different sources, by combining evidence from more than one source per paragraph and using more in text citations or direct quotes to reinforce her key points.

 

I think that basic credentialing information could be provided for Lisa’s sources, this is something that looking back, I need to add as well. I think this could easily be done with just a simple “(Authors name, and their title, i.e. author, statistician, physician etc.…)”, when the source is introduced into the paper might provide a reinforced credibility of the source.

 

As far as connection of sources, as previously mentioned, I think that in order to illustrate a stronger argument, using multiple sources to reinforce a single key point would solidify Lisa’s argument. I feel that more evidence provided from a variety of different sources, will provide the reader with a stronger sense of credibility and less room for bias that could be argued if the point is only credited to one source.

 

One area that stuck out to me for counter argument, being that my paper is in favor of this issue, is in paragraph two where Lisa states that “physicians are not supposed to kill patients or help them kill themselves, and terminally ill patients are not in a position of making rational decisions about their lives.” I’d like to offer my argument for this particular statement. In states where assisted suicide (or as I prefer to refer to it, assisted dying) is legal, there are several criteria that a patient has to meet in order to be considered a candidate. These criteria include second, even third opinions to determine that death is imminent, as well psychological evaluation(s) and an extensive informed consent process that is a collaborative effort between the patient, the patient’s family, physicians, psychologists and nurses. It is a process that takes weeks to months. Patients that wish to be a candidate, should initiate the process as soon as they have been diagnosed by seeking a second opinion. As an emergency room nurse, I have been present for a substantial amount of diagnose