Unformatted Attachment Preview
Drummond/2000
Paper Two—Issue Analysis: Controversial Issue Objectively Presented
Due: Friday, April 3rd (see our calendar for draft due dates)
Audience: academic community not familiar with your issue.
Aim/Purpose: Objective, well-researched presentation of your controversial issue; to
Inform, analyze, and convince.
Length: 1500 words minimum
Format: MLA
Sources Required: a minimum of 10, all of which must be credible sources.
Four of the sources must be from scholarly journals or sources; another 3 must be
academic sources. All sources must have been published in the last 15 years.
The Paper
Your paper will consist of seven sections in the following order:
1. Case Example
Case examples are a great way to start a research paper because they put the issue
in context for the reader and illustrate the controversy. Case examples, in general,
should not be longer than one paragraph. This first paragraph should end with your
thesis/research question (Should…….?)Part of your research process is finding the
best case example to illustrate the controversy. Don’t rely on direct quotes here;
paraphrase and summarize and don’t forget to cite your source(s).
2. Defining Terms
Are there any terms that you need to define so your audience will understand how
you are using them and what they mean? This is the paragraph to do that. If there
aren’t any, then you don’t need to include this paragraph.
3. Background/History
What information do readers need to know about this issue to understand how the
issue has reached the point at which it currently exists? This might include actions,
laws, acts, reports, defining moments, and governmental initiatives as well as
organizations and individuals important to the controversy. This section, if well
developed, will probably take several paragraphs.
4. Stances in the Controversy
In any controversial issue, generally there are proponents (those in favor of) and
opponents (those opposed to) to the debate. There is often a third group, a kind of
middle ground: those who offer an “in between” or alternative solution or stance
(i.e., there are those who are opposed to any regulations against assault weapons;
there are those who are in favor of banning assault weapons; and there are those
who are opposed to some regulations against assault weapons). In this section, you
provide the main points to the various sides of your issue (i.e., Those who are
opposed to banning assault weapons argue that: reason 1, reason 2, reason 3, etc)
and the primary evidence they use to support their points. In general, you should
figure on three paragraphs for each side (one paragraph for each reason, with each
reason functioning as your topic sentence and appropriate transition words or
phrases). This is the section where direct quotes are the most appropriate in the
paper (because you should be using credible authorities on the topic). Make sure
you have clear transition/topic sentences as you move into the next “side.”
5. Analysis of Arguments
You will examine the strengths and weaknesses of each side to the debate in the same
order you discussed the sides in section 4. You will need at least two paragraph for
each side: one for the strengths, one for the weaknesses. Analyze each side’s use of
appeals, evidence, and authorities. Analyze the logic: are there fallacies? What seem to
be the primary values that each group holds?
6. Conclusion: Which Side Has the Strongest Argument
Your conclusion is a paragraph where you explain which side has the strongest
argument, in your opinion, and why. This isn’t which side you agree with, but which
side has put forth the better argument.
7. Works Cited Page
Turning Your Paper In
You need to email me your paper, saved and labeled per our syllabus, as a Word document
by class time on the due date.
Your folder is due at the beginning of class on the due date.
On the right side: The drafts you gave peer responses to.
On the left side: the draft we worked on in conference and copies of sources used in the
paper (see below for more explanation)
Make sure you include photocopies of each source (the first page and any pages where
you’ve paraphrased, summarized or quoted the source in your paper—and those sections
should be highlighted).
If you don’t include all the necessary materials, I will return your paper to you ungraded,
and you will need to bring it back to me during my office hours with the necessary material,
within one week of receiving your paper. During this meeting, I will discuss your paper with
you, and you’ll have 1 week to resubmit the paper: this will count as your revision. You
have to meet with me within a week; otherwise your paper will be refused and receive a
zero.
Values
We will be talking about values and how values can inform our beliefs and opinions, both
educated and uneducated opinions. Below is a partial list of some common values. Start
thinking about what you value and begin identifying what values the various perspectives
to your argument hold.
Safety
Security
Freedom
Justice
Wealth
Equality
Peace
Compromise
Autonomy
Choice
Compassion
Tradition
Human Rights
Wildlife
Optimism
Supremacy
Restraint
Integrity
Diplomacy
Life
Wisdom
Utility
Unity
Trust
Spirituality
Stability
Structure
Temperance
Thrift
Teamwork
Frugality
Ecology
Natural Resources
Prosperity
Honesty
Expediency
Mercy
Technology
Accountability
Altruism
Creativity
Fairness
Completion
Community
Conviction
Education
Efficiency
Faith
Family
Advancement
Invention
Practicality
Strength
Hope
Preciseness
Exploration
Citizenship
Honor
Law-abiding
Individuality
Industry
Intellect
Leadership
Nature
Obedience
Order
Privacy
Resolution
Responsibility
Innovation
Health
Restraint
Growth
Logic
Accuracy
Cooperation
RIGHT-TO-DIE
2
Please note: this paper uses APA format and was written for a course at another university,
so some of the requirements were different from your assignment.
This paper received an 80
Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legalized in the United States?
Physician-assisted suicide has been a contentious topic in America for many years. Many
cases have stirred up controversy on the topic, but perhaps none more recognized than the story
of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, aka “Dr. Death.” In the late 1980’s, Dr. Kevorkian came to the nation’s
attention. He was a Michigan pathologist who believed individuals suffering due to health
reasons should have the legal right to a peaceful physician-assisted death with dignity (Hosseini
204). In 1989, Dr. Kevorkian found his first patient: fifty-four year-old Janet Adkins suffering
from Alzheimer’s. Mrs. Adkins’ death, assisted by Dr. Kevorkian, prompted the Michigan
authorities to arrest and charge him with murder. The charges were later dropped because
Michigan had no law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide; therefore the courts concluded that
he had broken no laws (204). For the next 10 years Kevorkian remained in and out of the news as
he assisted other people with their deaths. Then, in 1998, Dr. Kevorkian made a huge mistake.
He not only videotaped but directly administered life-ending medications to Thomas Youk, a
patient suffering from the physically debilitating Lou Gehrig’s disease (205). Soon after the tape
was aired on 60 minutes, Kevorkian was again arrested by Michigan authorities and charged with
murder. This time Dr. Jack Kevorkian was found guilty and sentenced to 10-25 years in prison,
of which he served 8 years; he died four years later (205). Dr. Kevorkian had hoped that his
actions would bring about meaningful change to help legalize physician-assisted suicide. To this
day we are still contemplating the same ethical and moral question. Should physician-assisted
suicide be a legal option in end-of-life healthcare decisions?
RIGHT-TO-DIE
3
When I speak of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), I am not addressing the practice of
“pulling the plug” on patients hooked up to life-sustaining machines; I am talking about a
physician administering life-ending drugs to a patient suffering from a terminal illness.
PAS is a fairly new medical issue that has been woven into the national dialogue over the
past twenty years; however, PAS has a long history that can be traced back to ancient
civilizations. According to E.J. Emanual, an American bioethicist, Greek physicians would give
patients poison at their behest because Greek society advocated voluntary death over endless
misery (Friend 20). During this time, the Hippocratic School, which championed the “do no
harm” approach, was outnumbered but flourished with the growth of Christianity and created a
large opposition to PAS. This would eventually lead to the decline of PAS in Europe by the
fifteenth century (22).
Fast-forward to modern times and in 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to
legalize PAS, a practice they had routinely utilized since the 1970s (Schwartz 111). Several
countries followed suit and eventually three states in America followed: Oregon, Washington,
and Montana. Oregon has been the real trailblazer in this fight and today is evidence of the
successful use of PAS by proponents of legalization. After voters initially approved Oregon’s
Death with Dignity Act in 1994, litigation kept it from being signed into law for three years, but
in 1997 the Act became law (Lindsay 209). Washington followed Oregon’s lead in 2008, and in
the 2009 case of Baxter v. Montana, the Montana courts ruled that physician-assisted suicide was
legal by state law (Friend 20). Today, it looks as if public opinion is shifting in favor of
legalizing PAS with the help of organizations like Compassion and Choices.
Opponents of legalizing PAS use several compelling arguments to support their beliefs.
First, they point out that healthcare professionals take an oath to “do no harm” to their patients.
The Hippocratic Oath that healthcare professionals swear to uphold states, “… physicians will
give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked nor suggest any such council” (Friend 113).
RIGHT-TO-DIE
4
According to Mary Friend, a former nurse who now specializes in medical ethics, the Oath has
been rewritten many times throughout history but the overriding message still holds true;
physicians should protect their patients from harm (111). Vicki Lachman also points out that the
American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics for Nurses stresses that, “… nurses may not act
with the sole intent of ending a patient’s life even though such action may be motivated by
compassion, respect for patient autonomy and quality of life considerations” (124). Opponents
use these assertions to attack the ethical problems related to PAS.
Opponents also argue that laws set up to protect the vulnerable in our society can be
averted to obtain a predetermined outcome. They point to the case of Helen, the first person to
take advantage of Oregon’s Death with Dignity law, to illustrate this problem (Bello 33). In
1997, Compassion and Choices published Helen’s case to demonstrate the usefulness of the law,
but it backfired (Friend 201). After reviewing the case, legal experts found the details troubling
(Turner 114). Helen’s first two physicians would not grant her the deadly prescription; so she
“shopped around” to locate another physician who had only known her for two and a half weeks
before prescribing the deadly recipe (114). Opponents say Helen skirted the law, and her new
physician did not know her long enough to ascertain whether she was competent and able to
make the lethal decision.
However, proponents believe there are contradictions in our current laws, which subvert a
patient’s autonomy by default. Ronald Lindsay, an Oregon lawyer who specializes in medical
cases, explains that there are no laws in any state that deem suicide illegal; the laws target the
people who assist those who seek to commit suicide (20). Most people who pursue this lethal
option are unable to carry out such a plan on their own. They need a physician to prescribe them
the proper medications or they will essentially lose their autonomy and be forced to live out the
rest of their life in misery. Lindsey points out that a survey in Oregon showed close to 75 percent
RIGHT-TO-DIE
5
of those who request PAS were confined to a bed or chair (20) Proponents conclude that if PAS
were legal, these patients would achieve true autonomy in end-of-life choices.
Proponents also claim that dire predictions broadcast by their opponents can easily be
repudiated by the facts collected after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA) was enacted
fifteen year ago. Lindsay recites the usual objections by opponents of PAS: the “vulnerable” will
be targeted or the quality of palliative care will deteriorate (19). He points out that none of these
predictions have come true; in fact just the opposite has occurred. All of the facts compiled under
the ODWDA have demonstrated that the “vulnerable” have not been targeted. Lindsay explains
that most of the patients seeking PAS “…are white, well-educated, and financially secure, and
their gender approximates that of the general population” (19). And ODWDA has shown
evidence that palliative care has actually improved in recent years (Lindsay 19). Proponents
consider ODWDA the best example of a law that every state should enact to provide patients
adequate options to end their life with dignity.
There is another side to this debate that is eloquently articulated by Daniel E. Lee, a
physician who is vehemently opposed to PAS for moral reasons and believes we should
concentrate our efforts on showing patients love and caring in the midst of suffering instead of
deeming their actions illegal (4). Lee considers ODWDA “…an elaborate procedure consistent
with the most rigorous standards of voluntariness” that prevents abuses in the system (2). If the
patient goes through all the “rigorous” regulations stated by ODWDA, Lee sees no need to
regard that person as a criminal. Lee, and others who hold his position, claim that if we show
patients that there is meaning and purpose to their life, PAS will be an alternative that is rarely
selected (4).
After examining both sides I could not decide where I stood on the issue. I did not agree
morally with assisting someone with his or her own death, but I also do not believe we should
legislate our morality onto others. Then, I stumbled upon Lee’s article, and my position became
RIGHT-TO-DIE
6
acutely clear. His echoed my sentiments to a tee. I believe that Oregon’s law proves all the
drastic predictions were unfounded, and yet I still could not get past the moral issue. Lee cleared
up the morality issue for me by demonstrating that my efforts would best be served in lifting the
person up rather than criminalizing his or her actions. We, as healthcare professionals, should
demonstrate to people that their life has meaning, and they should never give up hope in the
thought that God has something special in store for them. If in the end they choose to end their
life, let it be with the utmost dignity.