The issue of euthanasia has been a burning one for many years. People argue for and against euthanasia, and Gail Deagle is one of the authors whose views on this issue are absolutely negative. In her essay Euthanasia Reconsidered, Deagle manages to express her opposition to the emerging trends towards euthanasia legalization in Canada. Presenting her argument one by one, Deagle explains why she thinks euthanasia is unacceptable for the human society. Her discussion displays both strong and weak points, and this fact proves once again that euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics nowadays.
Needless to say, the essay under analysis has a number of strong points. First of all, it adds to the credibility of the paper that Deagle refers to numerous scholars, specialists, and documents in her writing. Instead of simply presenting her ideas about euthanasia, the author explains the reasons for thinking in the way she does and supports her own opinion with ideas by reputable scholars. Secondly, Deagle’s argument is quire strong in itself because the author uses logic and appeal to the rationale of the reader.
Thirdly, this appeal is combined with emotional coloring that reading about people in terminal conditions presents. Finally, Deagle structures her essay in a proper way, has a well developed thesis statement, and properly acknowledges the sources of cited information. These are the basic strong points one can observe in the essay under analysis.
In this respect, the proper organization of points and arguments in the discussed essay should be especially emphasized. First of all, reading the essay by Deagle one can observe the proper structure required for a for and against essay. In more detail, there is a clearly discernible introduction that provides the background to the topic, introduces the thesis statement, and state the opinion of the author of the topic discussed.
Bassham (2005) argues that a good introduction is the basis for the whole work (p. 281), an Deagle manages to provide such a basis in her essay. Next, the essay’s main body is divided into paragraphs that reflect the author’s arguments, while the logical conclusion closes the paper up. At the same time, in the paragraphing of the main body one can see a drawback, because the number of paragraphs does not fit the number of arguments, which is advisable for for and against essays according to Brundage and Lahey (2008, p. 187).
Further on, the paragraphing is not the only weak point about the essay. Bassham (2005) notes that every claim made in an essay should efficiently supported by evidence and/or properly cited (p. 229). In Deagle’s essay, one can observe several unsupported and not-cited points. For example, the second paragraph starts with an unsupported claim which is not cited as a scholarly opinion, and thus looks like a mere author’s assumption presented as a universal truth.
Also, the fourth paragraph ends up with statistical data, but the source thereof is unknown, and this fact undermines the data credibility. The sixth paragraph seems to be a set of unsupported claims that the author presents as the universal truth again, as well as the beginning of the seventh paragraph. On the whole, Deagle seems to be more concerned about convincing people in her point of view regarding euthanasia than in presenting objective pros and cons of this phenomenon. This is complicated by the fact that she presents no support for her viewpoint.
Further on, the tone used by Gail Deagle also makes the reader think of the author’s intentions rather than the content of the essay. More specifically, the above mentoned paragraphs where Deagle presents unsupported claims look a lot like appeals to the emotional side of the reader’s personality than to the rational side thereof. For example, claiming that “the disabled are wary and fearful”, Deagle does not explain where she knows it from, which disabled in particular she means, or how she can speak for all disabled on the whole. This point about Deagle’s tone makes a negative impression, while the use of the firm but still inclusive and respectful manner of addressing the opposite the side of the euthanasia debate can be viewed as the strong point of the author’s writing and argumentation techniques.
Brundage and Lahey (2008) single out the respectful tone as one of the strongest tools of influencing the target audience (p. 195), and Deagle uses it rather skillfully. Obviously, one can find no offensive words or any other means of thought expression that could violate the rights or hurt the dignity of those supporting euthanasia. No criticism can be addressed to Deagle in this respect, as well as regarding the use of sources.
In more detail, Gail Deagle uses four references for a four-page essay. Although Bassham (2005) argues that two – three sources per page is the desired proportion of sources used, but for the essay under analysis no need for additional sources is observed. The only critical remark that can be made about the sources’ use is that the essay contains several paragraphs in which sources should have been cited but they were not. If the data contained in those paragraphs was taken from the used sources, Deagle should have acknowledged that, but if not, the author still should have used several additional sources to eliminate this point as one of the drawbacks of the paper that has both strong and weak points.
References
Bassham, B. (2005). Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction. McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Ltd.
Brundage, D. and Lahey, M. (2008). Acting on Words. Pearson Education Canada, 2nd Edition.