Select Page

ASSISSTED SUICIDE This final writing assignment allows you to present an analysis of the best reasoning on each side of your issue. In the process, you will get to demonstrate some of the key skills you have learned during this course. In particular, you will demonstrate the ability to create high-quality arguments on both sides of an issue, to support your reasoning with scholarly sources, and to provide a fair analysis of the strength of the reasoning on each side. Make sure to incorporate any relevant feedback you got from the instructor on your previous writing assignments.For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the Week 5 Example paper.Your paper must include the following sections, clearly labeled:


Introduce readers to your topic; include a brief preview of what you will accomplish in this paper. (approximately 150 words)

First Argument

Present the best argument on one side of the issue. (approximately 150 words)

Express your argument in standard form, with the premises listed one by one above the conclusion.

Defense for First Argument
Support the first argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You may also choose to clarify the meaning of key premises and to explain how your reasoning supports the conclusion (approximately 250 words).

Opposing Argument

Present the best argument on the other side of the issue (approximately 150 words).

Express your argument in standard form.

Defense of Opposing Argument
Support the opposing argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You are welcome as well to clarify the meaning of premises and/or to explain the reasoning further (approximately 250 words).

Analysis of the Reasoning (approximately 350 words)

Evaluate the quality of each argument, addressing whether key premises are true and whether the conclusion logically follows from them.
Analyze arguments for any fallacies committed or for any biases that may influence either side. Do you feel that one argument makes a much stronger case than the other and why? (There is no need to “take sides,” only to assess the quality of the arguments.)
Support your analysis with scholarly sources.

Conclusion (approximately 150 words)

Provide a brief conclusion and summary of your issue and how it can best be addressed by critical thinkers.

The Analyzing Reasoning on Both Sides Final Paper
Must be 1,200 to 1,600 words in length (not including title and references pages), double-spaced, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.)

Must include a separate title page with the following:

Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted

For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.).
Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text. The Help! Need Article (Links to an external site.)tutorial can also assist with searching for

The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this Ashford University Library Quick ‘n’ Dirty (Links to an external site.) tutorial, which introduces the Ashford University Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips.

Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper guide. (Links to an external site.)

Must include a separate references pages that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications.



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: SUICIDE
‘Assisted Suicide’
1. ‘Assisted
The APA formatting on this
cover sheet is very well done!
[Daniel Haynes]
Chrystal McRee
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Instructor: Daniel Haynes
December 8, 2019
Do all people have right to choose what they can do with their lives as long they inflict no
danger on other individuals?
For APA formatting, you need
a running head and page
numbers at the top of each
page. Good work on this part
of the formatting! [Daniel
The right to assisted suicide primarily pointed out concerns on the lives of many citizens in
various states globally. They are getting to the drawing board, asking whether a dying patient has the right
to get assisted to die. To avoid pain or agony, the patient might be undergoing? Physicians have differing
views on the same question. Many patients that have a terminal illness and are in the critical stage of the
disease. Many times, have requested physicians to help them in euthanasia raising the question of whether
every person has the right to choose what they want to do with their lives as long as they harm no one
else. Many people differ in this aspect that has a varied dimension of viewing it. They don’t understand
the difference between relieving patient pain and killing the person. Will address the two sides, on
whether people have the right to choose on what they have to do with their lives.
Presentation of an Argument
Physician-assisted suicide is a solution to the different questions raised on the dilemma of
euthanasia. Those medical ethics do support assisted suicide. Physicians have the mandate to do anything
in their duty to ensure they respect patient anatomy. Besides, they consider it t just with the patient and
2. lives.
In an introduction, in addition
to a thesis statement, you
also need to outline the paper
to show your approach to the
topic. This gives the reader
an idea of what to expect as
they follow your reasoning in
the paper. [Daniel Haynes]
practicing fairness (Nordqvist, 2016). Medical ethics, in addition to the law, respect the right of the client
to refuse medication besides life-supporting treatment. The idea is to get rid of the treatment that the
patient considers not to be consistent with the goals that they have. An ethical argument in the prop of
3. (Nordqvist,
This is a good use of
research to support your
point. [Daniel Haynes]
assisted suicide by physicians puts into consideration the principle of respecting patient anatomy. The act
of assisted suicide is getting viewed as an act of compassion through respecting patient way and fulfilling
the mandate of non-abandonment (Nordqvist,2016).
Traditional ethics in the field emphasizes on providing care to patients. These ethics require
physicians not to act in a manner to suggest they want to end the life of the patient internationality. It is in
line with expectation of whether all people have the right to do anything with their life as long they don’t
4. Traditional
You need standard form
arguments for both sides of
the topic. [Daniel Haynes]
harm anyone. Besides, the question of getting helped to commit suicide is in line with the ethics
controlling physicians in their duties.
Presentation of an Argument on the Other Side of the Issue
On the opponent’s side of viewing, the idea jeopardizes physician way capability to practice
better care to the best of the patient, besides physicians are participants of a profession that is guided by
moral ethics, they are not just there to deliver services but to be compassionate because they are human
beings (Nordqvist,2016). This act will breach the patient-physician relationship, in addition to the
breaching of the confidence that the public as on physicians of protecting public health the action of
suicidal assist is contrary to the physician duty of medically advising patients on the right way to follow
the medication. In this context, there is no justification for a patient undergoing euthanasia. Just as
medication cannot eradicate death, it’s the same way it cannot put an end to suffering.
Balancing this aspect on either side, people have the right to choose what do with their lives
creates ethical arguments on the partnership of the patient-physician. The partnership It’s a kind of
relationship that gets built upon differences in terms of duty performed by the physician in society.
Assisted suicide is not a remedy for disease; neither is it a solution to all the puzzles raised on the very
1. Balancing
The reasoning in your
paragraph is excellent, you
just need to put the argument
in standard form. [Daniel
issue (Hall and Parker,2018). This practice is problematic if put into practice, especially affecting the
relationship of patient vs. physician. Control, method, and manner of death as never been an objective of
medicine; however, through proper communication therapies, high-quality care physicians advise the
patient on the best way to live the very last stage of life.
Hall, W., & Parker, M. (2018). The need to exercise caution in accepting addiction as a reason for
performing euthanasia. Addiction, 113(7), 1178-1180.
Nordqvist, C. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Medical News Today.
2. References
You did a great job formatting
your sources for proper APA
on this reference page.
[Daniel Haynes]
[no notes on this page]
Assisted Suicide
1. Assisted
The APA formatting on this
cover sheet is very well done!
[Daniel Haynes]
Chrystal McRee
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Instructor: Daniel Haynes
December 22, 2019
For APA formatting, you need
a running head and page
numbers at the top of each
page. [Daniel Haynes]
Assisted Suicide
Assisted suicide or euthanasia is a concept that has triggered a significant debate in the
recent past. The issues of morality and ethics play an important role when the life of a patient is
concerned. The presumption that taking the life of terminally ill patients is essential to save them
from pain has been subjected to great opposition. The justification of euthanasia requires special
emphasis to determine the most appropriate measures that should be taken when addressing this
issue. Evidence provided by researchers in scholarly works is reviewed in this paper to determine
whether it is justifiable to practice assisted suicide or not from legal, moral, and ethical
It is the responsibility of physicians and other healthcare providers to preserve the life of
their clients. According to Gopal (2015), physicians are the ones who are trusted with patients’
2. perspectives.
This is a clear and strong
thesis statement! Having this
in your introduction sets up
the paper really well. [Daniel
lives. Gopal (2015) argues that it is in order to find that the persons who are responsible for
preserving lives are the ones who approve suicide because of the existing conditions. The
position taken by Gopal (2015) is that under no circumstance should euthanasia be made illegal.
Some of the reasons why assisted suicide is seen as a legal activity are based on religion and the
3. (2015)
This is a good use of
research to support your
point. [Daniel Haynes]
beliefs of society. The work done by Gopal (2015) provides the basis under which the issue of
assisted suicide should be analyzed.
The main argument made by Gopa (2015) is that assisted suicide should be made legal,
regardless of the context under which it is practiced. The scholar supports this claim by
4. The
you need to put both
arguments in standard form.
[Daniel Haynes]
explaining how assisted suicide is induced psychologically. From the author’s perspective, I am
of the school of thought that every individual who is in the right state of mind can make sound
decisions, but decisions regarding the chronically ill patients should be made by other people.
The other issue considered by the author pertains to autonomy. There are some cultures where
patients do not have autonomy. The parents or guardians make decisions on their behalf.
However, most people argue that this behavior is unethical.
The author supports his point of view with evidence that attracts a sense of doubt. One of
1. autonomy.
This is an important ethical
principle to appeal to in such
moral arguments. [Daniel
his premises is that assisted suicide is induced psychologically. The other premise is that the
patients’ autonomy should be respected and prioritized when deciding to practice euthanasia. The
author concludes that there is no need for assisted suicide to be made illegal. He argues that
when patients decide to end their life, this is justifiable. When the aspect of patients’
2. illegal.
it is mostly illegal in the US
already. [Daniel Haynes]
psychological reasoning is considered, physicians cannot interfere with the autonomy of their
clients. However, I feel that this justification is not well supported.
There are several reasons why assisted euthanasia should be prohibited. In their study,
Sulmasy, Travaline, Mitchell, and Ely (2016), provided evidence in support of the need to make
assisted suicide illegal. According to these scholars, euthanasia is a critical issue that requires in
depth evaluation. They argue that it is an abomination of physicians to help patients end their
lives. Life is sacred, and the role of every physician should be to preserve it, with the converse
being unacceptable. From the perspective of people who provide end-of-life care, assisted
suicide should never be allowed. The scholars take the position that the duty of care is to
preserve life, and this should never change regardless of the situation. When patients request
physicians to help them end their life, there is a need for the physicians to consider the fact that
their aim is not to cut short the lives of their clients. In this regard, they should never practice
assisted suicide.
3. supported.
why? [Daniel Haynes]
Considering the quality of the arguments made by Sulmasy, Travaline, Mitchell, and Ely
(2016), they seem to design their evidence from an ethical perspective. When physicians help the
patients to end their lives, they inject them with a lethal dose. Their actions are said to be backed
by the consent of either the patient of their guardians or parents. However, there is a need for
1. perspective.
This is an ethical question; so
it makes good sense that they
would approach it that way.
[Daniel Haynes]
everyone to recognize that death is a natural phenomenon. Everyone should live until the last
minute without anyone interfering with their lives. When patients are assisted in ending their life,
the opportunity for recovery is eliminated. Even if the quality of life can be poor, people should
always aim to live a longer life. It is from this perspective that the scholars take the position that
assisted suicide should not be allowed.
One of the premises is that assisted suicide is ethically unacceptable. They also argue that
the worsening of the quality of life is not a justification for assisted suicide. The position taken
by these authors stands out to be emotionally convincing. It is right to help patients live a long
life and enjoy the company of their family members and friends. Their conclusion is that
physicians who practice assisted suicide violate the ethical standards and engage in an immoral
The evidence provided by Sulmasy, Travaline, Mitchell, and Ely (2016), justifies the
illegality of assisted suicide. Under no circumstance should the medical professionals
participating in ending the lives of patients. The aim of medical care is to help people live longer.
The only weakness of this justification is that it emphasizes on moral and ethical values without
strong support from previous studies. When the non-scholar sources from the previous paper are
considered, it appears that there is strong evidence both for and against the practice of assisted
suicide. In some instances, the patients can be suffering great pain, meaning that the physicians
can help them to end their life to save them from the pain. However, in some cases, patients
2. convincing.
what about logically
convincing? [Daniel Haynes]
cannot make sound decisions. In this regard, the physicians are left with the authority to make
decisions on their behalf. When this case arises, the scholarly articles analyzed indicate that the
autonomy of patients should be respected. As a result, physicians should act from a moral and
ethical standpoint, meaning that they should seek to preserve the lives of all patients.
As noted by Hall and Parker (2018), assisted suicide does not act as a remedy for the
disease. There are many issues revolving around the issues of health that cannot be solved
through euthanasia. Hall and Parker (2018) argued that physicians should advise patients about
the need to live until the end-stage of life. However, Nordqvist (2016) was of the school of
thought that euthanasia is a way of showing non-abandonment and respecting patients. The
argument by Nordqvist (2016) is that it is ethical for physicians to allow patients to stop taking
medications, if they wish to, regardless of the impacts. As a result, both the scholarly and nonscholarly take strong positions on either side of the issue of the debate on euthanasia. However,
all the sources tend to take the direction of ethics and morality. The implication of this is that
euthanasia should be considered from either an ethical or moral perspective.
[no notes on this page]
Gopa, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress,
and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. The Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law, 43(2), 183-189.
Hall, W., & Parker, M. (2018). The need to exercise caution in accepting addiction as a reason
for performing euthanasia. Addiction, 113(7), 1178-1180.
Nordqvist, C. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Medical News Today.
Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., Mitchell, L. A., & Ely, E. W. (2016). Non-Faith-Based
Arguments against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. The Linacre
Quarterly, 83(3), 246-257. doi:10.1080/00243639.2016.1201375
1. References
You did a great job formatting
your sources for proper APA
on this reference page.
[Daniel Haynes]
Is Marijuana Use Safe?
Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103 Informal Logic
Ashford University
Modeled example for the final paper assignment
In recent years, many states have voted to legalize marijuana, both for medical and
recreational uses, with other states possibly following suit in the future (Sanders, 2018).
However, federal law still prohibits the use or sale of marijuana in the United States. With the
recent decision by the Justice department to crack down on marijuana distribution in states with
legalized marijuana (Johnson, 2018), the question returns of whether those federal laws have real
medical science on their side, or whether they are relics of the politics of a bygone era (Ripley,
2017). This paper will begin to explore the specific question of whether marijuana use is harmful
to health. It will present a strong argument that marijuana is relatively safe and a strong argument
that it is unacceptably dangerous. This will be followed by an analysis of the merits of reasoning
and support provided by each.
Argument that Marijuana Use is Safe
Premise 1: Many studies have been done on the safety of marijuana use, and pooling
their data creates a large and reliable data set from which to determine the effects of
marijuana usage (Grant, Gonzales, Carey, Natarajan, & Wolfson, 2003).
Premise 2: Pooling the data from studies on the effects of marijuana usage shows no
significant cognitive impairment in reaction time, attention, language, executive function,
perceptual function, and motor skills in marijuana users (2003).
Premise 3: Meta-data showed minor cognitive impairment from long term marijuana only
in the areas of learning and memory, but these were minor and can be minimized (e.g., in
a medical context) (2003).
Premise 4: Marijuana has beneficial uses that outweigh its minor harms (Wetterau, 2015).
Premise 5: If a substance has beneficial uses that outweigh its harms then its use is
acceptably safe.
Conclusion: Marijuana use is acceptably safe.
Support for the Argument that Marijuana is Safe
A giant meta-study pooled data from many research studies of the effects of marijuana
use and determined that marijuana use did not result in significant change in performance in six
of eight cognitive areas (Grant et al., 2003). Because the study considered all relevant research
studies and had a large data pool, these results can be considered reliable. Thus, there is
substantial support for the first two premises of the argument.
The two areas in which there was a decrease in function, learning and memory, showed
relatively minor effects, which could be mitigated, for example, in medical contexts. For
example, the declines were the result of long term and/or recent use of marijuana. Casual users or
medical users may not experience even those minor declines in performance (Grant et al., 2003).
There are many documented medical benefits from marijuana use, including for nausea,
AIDS, chemotherapy, arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, MS, and Huntington’s disease. The
risks of harm from the use of a potentially addictive drug can be mitigated with proper
precautions from a physician (Wetterau, 2015).
The fifth premise is difficult to prove specifically because of different possible
interpretations of what it means for something to be ‘acceptably’ safe. However, various
academic articles support the idea that marijuana’s level of risk is within acceptable limits. Some
argue, for example, that it is safer than alcohol and even some foods (Americans for Safe Access,
2018), so if those substances are considered safe enough to be legal, then perhaps marijuana
should be too.
Furthermore, one can weigh the harms of its use against the harms of its criminalization.
One author, for example, reasons, “Given that marijuana’s harms appear to be relatively small,
though, advocates argue that, even if legalization leads to more pot use, it’s worth the benefit of
reducing incarceration and crippling violent drug cartels financed in part by revenue from illicit
weed sales” (Lopez, 2018). Therefore, one can reason, its use is safe relative to the harms of its
prohibition, and therefore that constitutes an acceptable level of risk.
Argument that Marijuana Use is Unsafe
Premise 1: Marijuana is an addictive substance (Volkow, Baler, Compton, & Weiss,
Premise 2: Marijuana use causes long term negative effects on physical and mental health
(Feeney & Kampman, 2016).
Premise 3: Marijuana use causes elevated driving risks (Neavyn, Blohm, Babu, & Bird,
Premise 4: Marijuana use among adolescents is correlated with lower academic
achievement, job performance, and social functioning (Palamar et al., 2014).
Premise 5: It is unsafe to use substances that are addictive and that have many negative
Conclusion: It is unsafe to use Marijuana.
Support for the Argument that Marijuana is Unsafe
The first four premises of the argument are supported by studies indicating each of the
effects in question. The degree to which these effects depend upon the quantity and duration of
use, along with the age of the user and recentness of use is still an open question. However, the
multiple studies cited do seem to support strongly the idea that t …
Purchase answer to see full