Assisted Suicide-Rebuttal

Re hardlytal Physician Assisted felo-de-se Rebuttal Physician Assisted Suicide Assisted suicide has been a controversial topic since long before this past election. Physician assist suicide (PAS) is when a physician gives a patient of, usually terminally ill, the content to end their life sentence by self-administered lethal injection or an drug of drugs (Marker). PAS should non be confused with euthanasia, which is when a person other than the patient causes the dying. Ben Mattlins article, Suicide by Choice?Not So Fast, argues that the mama cake to make physician assisted suicide legal in cases for those who engender six months or less to live, should not be supported. Mattlin contends that notch the right to die, entrust lead to abuse and coercion of patients that feel labored to end their lives (Mattlin, 2012). Mattlins article cites that in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, where physician assisted suicides have been made legal, there has been scant evidence of abus e and in mum alone there were over 200,000 cases of older abuse in 2010 (Mattlin, 2012).He uses 2 seemingly similar points to support his admit rationalization and applies a alarm tactic to substitute fear for reason (Moore, 2009). Mattlin bases his claim on comparability the abuse of physician assisted death in other states to elder abuse in Massachusetts, committing a rhetorical analogy. This is also an example of the tricksy slope fallacy (Moore, 2009). Since elderly abuse is already so prominent, how will assisted suicide be abused if it becomes legal? While the circumstance of abuse is similar, Mattlin states nothing to support that elder abuse leads to assisted death abuse but implies that PAS abuse will rise if legalized.The Massachusetts measure would apply to those having terminal illnesses with six month or less to live, however, Mattlin uses his aver experience as a sufferer of disbilitating spinal muscular atrophy to argue his opinion. This is an example of the straw man fallacy (Moore, 2009) because Mattlins sign prognosis of not living past the age of two (Mattlin, 2012), is a misinterpretaton of legalizing PAS for terminally ill patients with less than six month to live. In the article, it is unmixed that Mattlin concedes his situation is atypical, but he uses his anomoly to support the validity of his point.Now nearly 50 years old, a husband and father with a career, Mattlin points out that doctors involve to render judgement and opinion is a source of coercion that limits patients alternatives to slide by living. He argues that if not for his familys support for continued medical interference to keep him alive, his seeming diagnosis and prognosis left doctors questioning whether to hold out his life. To have survived his affliction for this long and been able to have a fulfilling life does not make him an way on the options for those suffering from terminal illnesses.Using his own illness as a credible source is an appeal to a uthority even though he is not a medical dear nor has he claimed any other reputable sources for his opinion other than experience. Mattlin leads the reader to conclude that physican assisted suicide is not really a voluntary, isolated choice, decision made by the patient to end their pain and suffering, but a limited decision that does not take into account effect and coercion. He makes emotional arguments on why the right to die should not be legalized, but the opinions are not based on reliable, credible, or valid data to logically support his argument.