Q1. Legalising euthanasia would be beneficial to mankind. How far do you agree with this?
INTRODUCTION
1. General Statement(s)
The term 'euthanasia' which roots from the ancient Greek words meaning 'good death', is used to refer to voluntary rather than compulsory euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is administered when an individual asks to be given a lethal injection to put him I her out of pain and to end his I her life while compulsory euthanasia is administered onto individuals who are terminally ill. In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983; around 3000 people formally request it there annually.
2. Your main opinion
Since euthanasia can put an end to a person's unbearable suffering, it is evident that the act of legalising euthanasia would only prove beneficial to humans.
BODY
1. Paragraph #1 (Basic paragraph of discussion)
(A) Topic Sentence
People should be allowed to request for 'mercy killing' to end their suffering.
(B) Elaboration
(I) Explanation
Victims of cancer, AIDS or motor-neurone disease may know, in the later stages of their illness, that the only prospect for the short remainder of their life is more physical degeneration and acute suffering.
(II) Example
They should be allowed to die with dignity with the help of, for example, a lethal injection or an overdose of morphine from a doctor.
(C) Restatement
Legalising euthanasia would therefore ensure the patient's right to choose his own destiny.
2. Paragraph #2 (Repeat the above steps)
- Use a different main point.
3. Paragraph #x (Giving opposing viewpoint yet not contradicting oneself)
(A) Topic Sentence of Opposing Viewpoint
Proponents of the opposing viewpoint advocate that / Other people feel that / Another camp would support the view that / Advocates of the opposing viewpoint would insist that. ..
however much a patient is suffering, it is the role of a physician, as expressed in the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors have to swear by, to cure disease and restore patients to health, not kill them.
(B) Elaboration
This camp of supporters explain that doctors should not be forced to compromise their professional oath nor be put under great moral pressure of deciding when to advise a patient that euthanasia might be the best option.
(C) Criticism of this main point / viewpoint
Finding Inadequacies of the viewpoint by giving reasons
However, as the nature of the profession is one of great nobility, is it not the doctor's duty to ensure the best for his patients? If death would alleviate physical pain or even solve the problem of insufficient vacancies in the hospitals, why should euthanasia not be legalised?
[Rhetorical questions serving to provoke / challenge assumptions.]
(II) Argue with clear reference to point made earlier
No matter what obligations or creed the Hippocratic Oath binds doctors to, it is ultimately the decision of the stakeholder, that is, the terminally ill patient that should be respected.
(D) Restatement of chosen stand
In view of this, legalising euthanasia would certainly, in the most pragmatic sense, benefit mankind.
4. Paragraph #y (Supporting that particular point of the opposing point yet maintaining chosen stand)
(A)Topic Sentence of Opposing Viewpoint
Opposition to the legalising of euthanasia would state that it is morally repugnant to carry out euthanasia in order to use someone's body parts for transplants.
(B) Elaboration
This act reduces the terminally ill patients waiting to be injected for death to just one more medical resource.
(C) Reason(s) why this particular point is acceptable
It is without a doubt that doctors should not abuse the legalising of euthanasia on the pretext of saving another life. Xenotransplantation which serves the same purpose is progressing by leaps and bounds -it should serve to be a reliable source then.
(D) Condltion(s) under which this point can be accepted
Having said so, it is important to note that only under the situation that doctors give the excuse of administering euthanasia to save another patient's life should the act be reviewed.
(E) Restatement of chosen stand
If doctors use their discretion and professional judgment to decide on mercy killing for the patient's own good and if possible, with the consent of the patient, euthanasia, when legalized, would be advantageous to
civilisation.
CONCLUSION
4. Examine the implication of no change
If euthanasia is not legalised, there would still exist a black market of capitalists who administer it illegally such that the ignorant public is not educated of the dangers of such a condition. Moreover, when terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery continue to occupy hospital beds, they are depriving other patients of medical resources. Therefore, in view of these issues, euthanasia as an alternative would bring good to the people.
Do Arguments ever settle anything?
A benevolent dictatorship is the most effective form of government. How far do you agree?
Evaluate the problems and benefits of the various ways in which society deals with waste materials.
The secret of happy life is moderation in all things. Discuss.
Does pride in one’s country still have a place in the modern world?
Can the transplanting of animal organs into human beings ever be justified?
Is a sound knowledge of science and technology essential for a well-educated person in today’s world?
Being in fashion makes a person popular; being different makes a person special. Discuss.
A preoccupation with physical fitness is the curse of modern life. Do you agree?
In a world without books or music, what would be missing? Discuss with reference to specific examples.
The world of future will be a woman’s world. What are your views?
Consider the criticism levelled at young people that their only values are self-centred ones