ID#181108
Kotone Ishii
RCA, Section 4F
Professor Tetsuya Fukuda
Position Analysis of Wennberg on Euthanasia
Wennberg disagrees with the idea of euthanasia. Type of evidence which supports this position is the language Wennberg uses. There are three examples of the language Wennberg uses.
Firstly, one of the language Wennberg uses is about the belief of Christian. He said “taking euthanasia seriously is consistent-in the final analysis-with rejecting it as a legitimate expression of mercy and compassion”. It suggests that even if there is the point of agreement between the belief of Christian and the idea of euthanasia in the belief of mercy and compassion, mercy and compassion of the Christian belief is not perfectly consistent with one of the euthanasia belief. In other words, he indicates that all Christian people cannot completely agree with euthanasia because they believe that the idea of euthanasia is like killing and the action against God domain, even if patients suffer from incurable disease. Therefore, he implies that we should have reservation about euthanasia in religious belief. This language he uses assists the position that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
Secondly, another example of the language Wennberg uses is about legalizing euthanasia. He said “However much of the debate over the wisdom of legalizing euthanasia moves in a different direction, centering instead on the possibility of gross abuse”. It means that people may use euthanasia casually if the idea of euthanasia is allowed on society by offending the moral sensibilities of society before many people cannot understand euthanasia well. In other word, he indicates that there is the possibility of gross abuse of euthanasia when euthanasia is legalized. Also, by the gross abuse of euthanasia, euthanasia may deprive patients of the right of living. Therefore, he has doubt about legalizing euthanasia. This language Wennberg uses implies that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
Thirdly, another example of the language Wennberg uses is about public opinion. He said “We should also remember that the questions in the surveys cited were positively framed, focusing only on features of the situation that would dispose one to give a favorite response”. It means that all results of three surveys on public opinion indicates that most people agree with euthanasia, however these questions of three surveys leads easily many people to answer the agreement with euthanasia because these questions are focusing only on patient’s hopeless plight which makes people answer agreement with euthanasia. In other words, he indicates that public opinion will be changed depends on question, so there is the possibility that most people answer disagreement with the idea of euthanasia if the question is changed. Therefore, he critical thinks about public opinion. By this language Wennberg uses suggests that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
In conclusion, type of evidence why Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia is the language he uses. There are three examples of the language he uses. One is the language he uses about the Christian belief, second is one about legalizing euthanasia, third is one about public opinion. These examples suggest that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
Kotone Ishii
RCA, Section 4F
Professor Tetsuya Fukuda
Position Analysis of Wennberg on Euthanasia
Wennberg disagrees with the idea of euthanasia. Type of evidence which supports this position is the language Wennberg uses. There are three examples of the language Wennberg uses.
Firstly, one of the language Wennberg uses is about the belief of Christian. He said “taking euthanasia seriously is consistent-in the final analysis-with rejecting it as a legitimate expression of mercy and compassion”. It suggests that even if there is the point of agreement between the belief of Christian and the idea of euthanasia in the belief of mercy and compassion, mercy and compassion of the Christian belief is not perfectly consistent with one of the euthanasia belief. In other words, he indicates that all Christian people cannot completely agree with euthanasia because they believe that the idea of euthanasia is like killing and the action against God domain, even if patients suffer from incurable disease. Therefore, he implies that we should have reservation about euthanasia in religious belief. This language he uses assists the position that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
Secondly, another example of the language Wennberg uses is about legalizing euthanasia. He said “However much of the debate over the wisdom of legalizing euthanasia moves in a different direction, centering instead on the possibility of gross abuse”. It means that people may use euthanasia casually if the idea of euthanasia is allowed on society by offending the moral sensibilities of society before many people cannot understand euthanasia well. In other word, he indicates that there is the possibility of gross abuse of euthanasia when euthanasia is legalized. Also, by the gross abuse of euthanasia, euthanasia may deprive patients of the right of living. Therefore, he has doubt about legalizing euthanasia. This language Wennberg uses implies that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
Thirdly, another example of the language Wennberg uses is about public opinion. He said “We should also remember that the questions in the surveys cited were positively framed, focusing only on features of the situation that would dispose one to give a favorite response”. It means that all results of three surveys on public opinion indicates that most people agree with euthanasia, however these questions of three surveys leads easily many people to answer the agreement with euthanasia because these questions are focusing only on patient’s hopeless plight which makes people answer agreement with euthanasia. In other words, he indicates that public opinion will be changed depends on question, so there is the possibility that most people answer disagreement with the idea of euthanasia if the question is changed. Therefore, he critical thinks about public opinion. By this language Wennberg uses suggests that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.
In conclusion, type of evidence why Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia is the language he uses. There are three examples of the language he uses. One is the language he uses about the Christian belief, second is one about legalizing euthanasia, third is one about public opinion. These examples suggest that Wennberg disagrees with euthanasia.