Rebuttal Essay: Nina

Physicians Approve Assisted Suicide

The argument of assisted suicide and its “easy access” to assist people in the alternative to help depression has patients and clinically diagnosed patients on a slippery slope. In Oregon, the “Death with Dignity” law allows individuals to receive doctor prescribed medication and us w the given instructions as followed to complete the procedure of death. Physicians are to be next to the patient as they complete the procedure in case any last minute changes are to come as an inconvenience. A survey was taken in Washington D.C, where over 1335 physicians were eligible to take a survey regarding their position on assisted suicide. Sixty nine percent of physicians completed, the results showed that forty two percent (42%) of physicians say that assisted suicide is never ethically justified, and another forty two percent (42%) disagreed. Out of the sixty nine percent (69%) of physicians that participated in the survey, only thirty three percent (33%) will be willing to perform the procedure.

Physicians argue that if patients are eligible for assisted suicide, it will contribute to the utilitarian ways of the rights of human beings. But, if encourage individuals to choose when they die with no legitimate reason all because it is “utilitarian” is morally unethical. This will lead to a number of people asking for assisted suicide due to a drive of emotions only because the option is available. This practice not only affects the person pursuing the procedure, it passes on the suffering to other similar people, who will fear they are the next person to be seen as having a worthless life. Physicians will counter this argument that their jobs are to be healers and ease pain. Although assisted suicide may help relive a patient of pain and suffering, the role of a healer is incompatible and would cause more harm than good.

Most conversations that surround abolishing the law in places where assisted suicide is legal has been introduced. In Oregon, one of the seven states in America where assisted suicide is legal show fear of the opponents of law who want to abolish the Death with Dignity law. Many are astonished that they will have to face chronic, agonizing, pain rather then the option of assisted suicide. Though facing this dilemma will rise questions about the fate of ill citizens, assisted suicide is a profit driven system. Meaning, insurers and physicians are doing what is the ” cheaper” option rather than a series of expensive treatments and medicine. So, if an insurer were to deny someone of assisted suicide, the only fatal measure is clinics losing money from unperformed operations.

Physicians would continue to argue that Physician Assisted Suicide (P.A.S) is like autonomy and bodily integrity as a marriage or relationship. Patients can determine what they want to commit to and when. On the contrary, this would be giving doctors and specialist the choice of whether or not you are eligible to receive P.A.S. Professionals and legislatures will have the power to choose who lives and who dies. We have the right to pursue life, not to pursue death. Yet another physicians obligation to assisted suicide is that their job is to assist in helping people die more comfortably. Easing the pain through a series of painless options for the procedure. In contrast, the physicians job is to tell the patient whats wrong and offer options of healing. Physicians are not operating the procedures because patients have six months, and even a forty-eight hour reassurance period up to the day of the procedure to decide if P.A.S is a remaining option.


Draper, B. M. (2015). Suicidal behavior and assisted suicide in dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(10), 1601-1611. doi:10.1017/S1041610215000629

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments. (2018, September 10). Retrieved from

Diekstra, R. F. W., & DIEKSTRA, R. F. W. (1995). Dying in dignity: The pros and cons of assisted suicide. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 49(1), S139-S148. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.1995.tb01917.x

This entry was posted in nina, Rebuttal Essay. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rebuttal Essay: Nina

  1. davidbdale says:

    Nina, a couple things about your first paragraph require attention.

    Your opening sentence sounds academic, but its meaning is unclear.

    The argument of assisted suicide and its “easy access” to assist people in the alternative to help depression has patients and clinically diagnosed patients on a slippery slope.

    I think you mean to say that opponents of assisted suicide believe access to the procedure is too easy, and that if it’s approved, access will become even easier over time, following the “slippery slope” model.

    If we break your sentence down to its skeleton, it says:
    THE ARGUMENT (of assisted suicide and its “easy access” to assist people in the alternative to help depression) HAS PATIENTS (and clinically diagnosed patients) ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

    If I told you I was going to refute my opponent by arguing that:
    you would have no idea what I meant. The patients certainly are not on a slope.

    The best way to build a strong, clear sentence is to begin with the most Robust Subject and Verb. In this case, your subject is MY OPPONENTS, and the robust thing they do is to OBJECT TO ASSISTED SUICIDE.

    Once you have the skeleton in place, you can insert the organs and lay on the skin.

    Opponents of assisted suicide object to what they wrongly call “easy access.” They worry that giving clinically depressed patients the right to end their lives will put us on a “slippery slope.”

    Don’t be afraid of straightforward sentences that make clear claims, Nina. Good writing is nothing more than identifying complex ideas and expressing them clearly.


  2. davidbdale says:

    Next in the same paragraph, you’re needlessly complicating the strong evidence you have to share. The survey of 921 physicians gives a good indication of how doctors feel about assisted suicide. The fact that the survey was offered to 1335 physicians, and that 69% of them responded, is irrelevant to how the respondents answered. Once we remove that extraneous information, your paragraph looks like this:

    In Washington D.C, 921 physicians were surveyed regarding their position on assisted suicide. 387 (42%) said that assisted suicide is never ethically justified, and exactly as many (387) disagreed. Of that same group, only 33% (304 respondents) would be willing to perform the procedure.

    Does that make sense? Why count or track the non-respondents who, for whatever reason, neglected or deliberately declined to make their positions known?

    I don’t know which of the three sources in your Reference list to consult for the details of this survey, and that’s another problem. Whenever you supply supporting material, you need to clearly identify the source while you’re delivering the material.


  3. davidbdale says:

    As the argument proceeds, Nina, you refer to Physicians and their objections, but as you’ve already indicated, the same number of physicians think the process can be ethical as object to it. So, you’re not refuting “Physicians”; you’re refuting Opponents of Assisted Suicide. The strongest approach is to find the opponent who makes the most convincing claims, quote those claims, then refute them by pointing out their flaws of logic, or disputing the evidence, or questioning the authority of the maker of the claims. Your References list indicates you’ve been reading on the topic, but you don’t quote any of the physicians who object, so it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re refuting.

    Do you need an example?

    Direct me to the source that makes the best argument that contradicts your own and I’ll see what I can do for you.

    I look forward to your Reply.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s