This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: I feel that Herbert Hendin did an ok job in his persuasive essay. I feel that he did a good job stating facts but I am not completely sure what I am being persuaded for. Hendin begins by discussing the history and defection of the word euthanasia and how it means painless, happy, death. Then Hendin continues on about compassion for suffering patients and respect for their autonomy. After this I believe he begins his idea that because doctors are not popular trained that it could go wrong and the patient could end up worse. He discusses that in the how in Netherlands this practice is legal. Hendin does a good job relaying to the reader that in the Netherlands where it is legal that there has been many instance where the doctor preformed this practice without the patients permission. After reading the entire essay the only thing that I feel is that if assisted suicide is legal that the doctors need to be properly trained on it. The doctors also need to be held responsible and it should have steps to ensure that it is in fact what the patient does want. I feel over all that the essay does not open well to let you know that it is an essay against assisted suicide. I also feel that the facts do not paint a clear picture on why it should be illegal they only show that it should be controlled and supervised. I feel [Clearer writing suggestion: if "feel" is used in the sense of "to believe or think," it is a clich and vague; use "believe" or "think"] that Herbert Hendin did an...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/08/2011 for the course ENG 101 taught by Professor Christianfaught during the Spring '09 term at University of Phoenix.
- Spring '09