Follow the steps below to complete this assignment:
Choose a current and controversial issue. For example, the same-sex marriage debate in Canada.
Read a newspaper article or watch television news coverage to gather facts and opinions about this issue. Record examples of bias.
Write a news report of the issue from two different perspectives, using the facts you have gathered. For example, one report would include facts about a war from a pro-war perspective. The other report would use the same facts from an anti-war perspective. Write the reports in a persuasive manner. That is—be biased! Each report should be a maximum of 150 words.
In your opinion, which report is more convincing? Why?
This assignment is the second piece of work for the cumulative section assignment.
The reports will be marked according to guidelines:
Elements of bias are clear: 6 marks Use of facts (3 per report): 6 marks Use of opinions (3 per report): 6 marks Clear, concise writing style: 2 marks
Any person can refuse a doctor’s aid, knowing that they’re going to die in pain. Why can’t a person that knows that they’re going to die request a doctor’s hand in making the journey comfortable and painless?
When a terminal patient knows that they are going to die and has accepted this fact, they may wish to die on their own terms. In these cases, by the end of their lives, these individuals are often in great pain and cannot even take care of themselves. Their dignity is taken away from them as they’re forced to survive even as they ask to die. The most common ‘cure’ for the severe pain of one’s body slowly dying piece by piece is to use medication to ease the discomfort. This can put a financial strain on them, and their family. If they know they’re close to dying and actively request to end their life, why should they be forced to bleed money just to stay comfortable as they naturally move towards the inevitable?
Either assisted suicide, euthanasia, or both, is already legal in five places in the world: The Nethelands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxenbourg, and the State of Oregon. In these places, patients confirmed to be terminal by a doctor or physician, and are deemed sane and understanding of that they’re requesting, have strict routes that they can follow to end their lives in a humane way, with a chance to say goodbye to those they love. Assisted suicide and euthanasia allows the death of the patient quickly and painlessly under supervision, while alternate forms of suicide offer no such guarantees.
This shouldn’t even be an issue for the dying. Who does your life belong to, if not you?
In the times that a terminally ill patient need their families the most, they are often also in need of drugs just to function without extreme pain. These expensive drugs can be used as a tool against the person, convincing them that they’re a burden and are simply dragging on the inevitable, increasing the medical debt that will be left when they’re gone.
What if the cure to their disease were to be discovered only a month after they end their life, in the time that they otherwise would have still been alive? These people choosing to remove the burden of their lives from the shoulders of their loved ones could also remove the pressure of finding those cures from the shoulders of those that seek them. This could elongate the time it takes to find cures and therapies, which would allow times for more people to suffer from the same illnesses.
Of course, for many religious people, there’s another, very obvious point: only God should choose when each life ends. Many medical professionals believe that no doctor should ever knowingly kill their patient. And who would believe that? Who would want to have a doctor that they knew had willingly and knowingly killed their patient?
Legalizing assisted suicide is legalizing the murder of weak, vulnerable people, and offers an opening for this to turn into a steep, slippery path: perfectly healthy people choosing to commit suicide and being aided by doctors. For example, in 2008, a healthy woman in Germany committed suicide with the direction of a doctor. She did this because she didn’t want to move into a care home. Has the world become so dark that this can happen without repercussion?
It will never be permissible for one human to end another’s life. Any other situation where the scenario is offered, it’s obvious what it is: murder. Why is it that this “assisted suicide” should be any different?
It’s been somewhat difficult for me to find logical arguments against assisted suicide in the news, and I understand why. This is a no-brainer. This is, after all, a different shade entirely from suicide via depression or spontaneity. People who know that their death is staring them in the face have a right to either spit in its face or accept it with open arms. Nobody has the right to stop them, and it’s only humane to help them if they know what they’re asking for.