“The Assisted Dying Bill is an ethical muddle – It is more than 50 years in Britain since anyone was put to death by order of a court. Do we really need to go back to it[?]” by Charles Moore of the The Telegraph. Published on September 6, 2015.
It is a great time to be doing this post, as my Honors Seminar group and I have just completed a discussion regarding assisted suicide’s pros, cons, and its predicted effect upon its proposed enactment in the United States. Charles Moore, who I have predicted to be a Liberal (member of Labour party), posted an article today, in which he addresses the controversial “Assisted Dying Bill” I was able to identify through Moore’s critical voice that he views the bill confusing and unnecessary through many reasons, questions, and possible situations. First, he includes that it would be personally tolling on the doctors or nurses administering the treatment, as the bill requires that the terminal patient deliver the drugs themselves. The staff would have to continually check the progress of the death. Second, he argues that it would be personally detrimental on the family, upon hearing of the terminal patient’s wishes. Finally, Moore frequently uses the “It is more than 50 years in Britain since anyone was put to death by order of a court” as a way of counter-arguing this bill. However, this defense is, in fact, unrelated to a person’s choice. It would not be an order of the court, it would be processed through the court. As you may see, Moore’s arguments sound very pathos-driven, and somewhat unreliable. I think that this article may change the way I view Moore’s arguments, as I feel he is supporting the Conservative party.
This is unrelated, but I also did not understand the purpose of the ad hominem attack on Corbyn.
Harrison's World of Lang 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/assisted-dying/11847817/The-Assisted-Dying-Bill-is-an-ethical-muddle.html#comment-2239765575
LikeLike
Harrison,
I thought it was interesting how you mentioned the article’s connection to Honors Seminar, because the moment I read the title of your post, I thought of your group’s project. While it is evident that Moore seems against the idea of assisted suicide, he does a good job trying to conceal his opinion compared to other articles. He tries to influence the audience by rapidly questioning them so that they are hesitant of their views on the topic of assisted suicide. Moore also does a good job explaining how each step of the process works before expressing his personal views on a step. In your post, you do a good job analyzing Moore’s opinion and how he shows it through reasoning, questioning, and other techniques.
Keep Up the Good Work,
Amanda
LikeLike
Harrison,
I just finished a post on the legalization of euthanasia in Quebec. The same issue is being discussed on the other side of the Atlantic! However, is it really a coincidence that many Pundits are choosing to write about this topic?
Your Pundit does not state his opinion as openly as mine does, but I agree with what you have inferred from his “critical voice”. While there are some strange arguments, like “(p)rofessionals who refuse to operate the law are always considered bores and weirdos,” I see a logical pattern in the numbered points. The writer moves from the professional (within which he goes from before the procedure to during it to after it) to the family and finally to the oddness of the time factor. The “(n)othing like this has ever happened before in this country” statements surround the arguments but do not form a part of the arguments themselves. Does that not make the article at least as much logos-driven as pathos-driven?
This is unrelated, but I enjoyed reading your statement at the end since I did not understand the purpose of the reference either.
Charvi
LikeLike
I think it’s a fascinating moral decision, and I think it’s an interesting point that Moore makes at the end about time, but I also don’t see the purpose of talking about court-ordered death, when it’s a personal decision. Are there any other reasons you can think of for or against the bill?
LikeLike
This was a great connection to Honors Seminar. While I can understand problems with coercion and moral issues with assisted suicide, a person’s choice to end their life prematurely to avoid suffering should be a decision made between patient and doctor, not legislators. The point about court-ordered death was irrelevant, and it damaged Moore’s ethos. You do a good job of dissecting Moore’s writing. I will be sure to frequently comment on your posts.
LikeLike
It certainly is a controversial issue. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your stance? I believe in assisted dying only if it is reliable and well-regulated. Also, I think doctors who are against it should not be forced to take part.
LikeLike
It certainly is a controversial issue. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your stance? I believe in assisted dying only if it is reliable and well-regulated. Also, I think doctors who are against it should not be forced to take part.
LikeLike