The concept of assisted suicide has been a relatively polarizing subject in society. The oath doctors take to always try to save their patients’ life as medical professionals is really the key part of this debate, as they are obliged to save lives like they so often do, but they are also required to respect the wishes of their patient and allow them to be in control of their own life. The debate around Euthanasia has changed overtime as society has seen its values and individual freedoms evolve with the times.

The supporting side of assisted suicide has a very outspoken ally in Len Doyal, a St Bartholomew′s and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London professor. His essay “Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should be Legalised” starts out with an intriguing anecdote about a woman named Diane Pretty who suffers from “motor neurone disease and is experiencing the disintegration of her body”. Mrs Pretty’s husband was denied the legal right to give doctors permission to pull the plug on the machines that are keeping her alive. Mrs Pretty is actively suffering from her disease every day and is only being kept alive by the work of doctors who are able to keep her body functioning, but not able to fully take the pain away from her. If her doctors believed that she could no longer function as a human being given her situation, Doyal says, “If her doctors believed that medical treatment could provide no benefit because of her inability ever to engage in any self directed activity, then legally they could withdraw life sustaining treatments, including hydration and nutrition.” This idea of assisted suicide has different perspectives throughout the world, as different cultures value life and the struggles of life differently.

As depicted in the graph above, there are currently 9 states in America and Washington D.C. which have legal Physician-Assisted suicide. There are many different avenues in which people argue against Euthanasia in today’s society. BBC.co.uk lays out four separate categories in which the idea of assisted suicide’s naysayers choose to argue. The ethical, practical, historical, and religious values of society are the ones called into question in this BBC article. The ethical avenue revolves around the idea that Euthanasia weakens society’s sanctity of life and eats away at the value of life in general, which could have unforeseen consequences in the future. A component of the practical argument is that Physician-Assisted suicide gives doctors too much power as it allows them to play “god” in certain situations and to not always be obligated to save human lives. The historical argument closely weaves into the ethical argument, as it is argues that legalizing this medical practice could send humanity on a “slippery slope” and if we allow doctors to legally kill people, then whats next in terms of how legal it is to take a human life. Finally, the religious component of the argument comes into play. This stance says that Euthanasia is against the will of god and, as illustrated in the ethical argument, decreases the human notion that life is special and should be fully enjoyed because we are so lucky to have it. This article relies heavily on logos and ethos, the credibility and sources of their facts. This is effective in certain ways but also lacks any pathos which is an integral part of each side of this topic. The different approaches that this article takes to the issue shows how polarizing it can be and also lays out the many different layers to the conversation, as the value of human life begins to be called into question.

Venturing into this dense topic of Euthanasia, it is usually a. topic discussing the legal aspects of the issue and relating that to the ethical and moral values of the people involved. As is the case for many issues, when they are properly researched and engaged with, there are more than just two binary sides to this issue. As assisted suicide plays out in the real world and fundamentally affects real lives, Cecilia Rodriguez, a senior contributor at Forbes, gives us an eye-opening insight into a new dimension of Euthanasia that she calls “Euthanasia Tourism” in her essay titled, “Euthanasia Tourism: Is The E.U. Encouraging Its Growth?”. Rodriguez defines her new word early in her essay to provide her readers with a solid foundation as she introduces this new topic to the question of assisted suicide, “The most general definition of the phenomenon: When a person travels to a country offering euthanasia or assisted suicide as a legal option because the act is forbidden or more restrictive in his or her home country.” Two recent defeats in the state legislatures of New Mexico and Arkansas, to enable doctors to prescribe life-terminating drugs to a patient who seeks to end their suffering by physician assisted suicide, have brought national media attention to this question of Euthanasia Tourism. She seems to reveal a little bias in her writing when she paints out the religious side of the issue in a relatively senseless light, “in the words of the Christian Post, ‘to enable ‘suicide tourism,””. She purposely uses the words “suicide tourism” to try and show, what she believes, is a shallow point of view that is shared by religious opposers to Euthanasia. The tone of this example she uses exposes the slightest amount of bias, although I believe it was intentional to almost subconsciously begin to develop this sense in the reader of sources like the “Christian Post” to possess shallow and unintelligent opinions on the subject. The words “suicide tourism” without any other context illustrate a very negative connotation as if assisted suicide is the exact same as regular suicide, which has been cast in such a poor light in modern society. The remainder of this essay seems to remain somewhat neutral as she mostly provides facts about travel rates and where Euthanasia is legal, this article is effective in its attempt to introduce an entirely new aspect of the issue and it important to note when laying out the full scope of the Euthanasia topic.

Assessing the strong and passionate sides of any argument is crucial when entering into such a polarizing subject like Physician Assisted Suicide. In a Vox article labeled, “Current laws permitting assisted suicide are morally indefensible”, written by Felicia Nimue Ackerman, the title alone shows the entire view of the author and which way the article will be skewed. As many passionate pieces do, this one begins with an anecdote that seeks to appeal to the emotion in a reader or the Pathos of the argument. Beginning this article with the story of an 84 year old who is suffering from the painful battle of terminal cancer is very effective in appealing to that emotional side of the reader and almost opening them up to become passionate and angry about the topic when at the end of that story, the sweet old grandma is denied her choice to die peacefully. Ackerman’s article depicts how she believes that Euthanasia should be a right given to everyone, not just the terminally ill. She cites the fact that, “The terminally ill are not the only people who may have strong and stable suicidal desires grounded in conditions that are unlikely to change,” which begins to enter the conversation of depression and mental health. Ackerman argues to the reader that Euthanasia is looked at too narrowly currently and her claim is that it should either be legal to everyone or illegal to everyone. Ackerman is an extremely progressive voice in this conversation and she demonstrates that throughout her piece. Reading this essay you can feel the passion in the writing and how strongly she cares about the subject and even when acknowledging the bias in the piece, the passion she has is quite moving and perfectly displays the aims and intentions of one side of this subject.

An article from The Atlantic titled “Whose Right to Die?” gives the other side to the issue when the author, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, begins his essay with the statement, “America should think again before pressing ahead with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia,”. This essay lays out both sides of the argument to begin and that proves very effective when he circles around to his stance again at the end of the essay. Exposing myths around suicide throughout his piece like this one which he calls “Myth No. 4”, “The experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands shows that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not eventually get out of hand,”. Emanuel fears the exact same slippery slope that is advocated for by Ackerman. He shares an opposite viewpoint and his tone throughout the piece is much more calm and calculated than that of Ackerman’s. This effectiveness in his writing style almost calms the reader down and brings them back into a moderate stance on this issue if read right after Ackerman’s article. Emanuel points out ,”not all cases are the same, and among the millions of Americans who die each year there are morally relevant differences that cannot be captured in an inflexible rule,” which in some ways agrees with Ackerman’s point that society views this issue too simply and there is much more to the topic than what is discussed. He acknowledges that difference as well but he shows the slippery slope that he fears could follow and when painted in the picture he describes, it proves as an effective way to present the issue from a naysayers point of view.

It is fascinating to watch how each side attempts to get their point across and the different techniques used in their writing styles and word choice. Each technique has its different way in being persuasive and moving, it is the beauty of Rhetoric in which you can make your point in any way that you believe will be most effective. The topic of Euthanasia is a subject that I believe will be debated about for a long time and it will not go gently into that good night but will rage against the dying of the light, as Dylan Thomas so eloquently put.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Felicia Nimue. “Current Laws Permitting Assisted Suicide Are Morally Indefensible.” Vox, Vox, 21 Nov. 2016, http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/21/13693016/assisted-suicide-referendums-philosophy.

“Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night by Dylan Thomas – Poems | Academy of American Poets.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night.

Doyal, L, and L Doyal. “Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalised.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), BMJ, 10 Nov. 2001, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121585/.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J. “Whose Right to Die?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Mar. 1997, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/whose-right-to-die/304641/.

“Ethics – Euthanasia: Anti-Euthanasia Arguments.” BBC, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml.

Rodriguez, Cecilia. “Euthanasia Tourism: Is The E.U. Encouraging Its Growth?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 Mar. 2019, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2019/03/17/euthanasia-tourism-is-the-e-u-encouraging-its-growth/?sh=4f2972b7229b.