Commentary on Janelle's "Proposal of Death"

In Janelle’s “Proposal of Death”, she addresses the ethical dilemma of the practice, or lack thereof, of euthanasia in the United States. She holds firm to the idea that it’s immoral that we don’t allow it. In support of this notion, she proposed that “…the government should develop a special board that is geared towards the legalization and regulation of euthanasia, with focus groups working on different aspects of the regulations that will eventually be implemented into the use of euthanasia as a means of ‘final treatment’.” To me, this is a logical and concise proposal for the heated debate on euthanasia.

If a skeptic has an argument against this proposal, she backs her argument with enough evidence to possibly sway them. She uses the facts presented by how well the legalization of euthanasia has worked in the Netherlands. She states that they have several “important regulations that I believe would be essential to helping euthanasia’s legalization in the US.” She goes on to quote specific examples that would take care of any pertinent questions that would be brought up by a skeptic.

The opposition might ask that it may be “difficult to deal with those who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons, or pressurize venerable patients into dying (BBC Pro-Euthanasia Arguments).” In rebuttal, Janelle strongly states: “But if the proper regulations are made, these situations could be avoided.” I feel she could elaborate here to make her case a little stronger; such as what those regulations are in detail to counter this argument.

Janelle’s usage of the resemblance proposal with the case of the Netherlands works well overall in this essay. She could elaborate a bit more about the exact details of the regulations and such. And the main criticism I have would be to drop the part that introduces the subject of euthanasia again, because the ethical argument paper already did that. In addition, is she puts more emotion into the subject of Lillian Boyes, this could dramatically improve her chances of swaying a skeptic into believing this is an ethical right of the suffering patient. Painting a graphic picture of her death could prove very beneficial. This paper has a direct proposal that makes sense to me and with a little more detail added to it, will be an effective argument to legalize euthanasia. I have always agreed with the legalization of it here in the states and this proposal seems the fairest and most logical within the hands of our government.

           

Ethical Argument Reflection

The main difference I can see between the first and second draft of my ethical argument is the fact that I clearly stated my thesis on the ethical issue of obesity in the second revisal. I claim that it’s immoral to be so grotesquely overweight or obese and I feel that the government is not holding people responsible at the level that they ought to be. I tried to make it much clearer to the reader through my views of the moral problems with being so grossly overweight, and that we need to change this issue now in a drastic way.

In the first draft it seems as though I was using more facts and statistics than actual persuasion from my own beliefs. I feel as though I strengthened my argument and proposal by discussing a personal incident I had recently at Wal-mart. This allowed the reader to understand my view of the subject through descriptive imagery of why mandated behavioral therapy is a must to end the obesity epidemic in America. I clearly stated that it’s about the everyday choices we make rather than the actual overeating problem itself. It’s up to every person to manipulate their own life and make the right choices. The government can only do so much to control this, but it’s their responsibility too now to enforce stricter guidelines on eating healthier, exercising regularly and maintaining a normal weight. This proposal I came up with is a good idea in my opinion and could cost some serious money for the government. But in the end, it could save lives.

And finally, I structured the body of the essay better by using the advice my wise instructor gave me by showing specific “negative” consequences and what people can do to improve these immoral “learned habits.” I revised most of the first draft, but mainly left the conclusion alone because it seemed to follow the guidelines I needed to adhere to. I really felt like this last essay was easier to put together into its final draft than the other two we previously wrote. Maybe it’s because I’m very passionate about my health and other people’s too, or maybe I just don’t want to see any more obese children walking around. It breaks my heart to know that parents are choosing to let their kids eat that much.

Just do it!!!

1.       If we primarily find self-worth through “what we do”, as Wong suggests; then is it true that who we are “deep down” within our character, doesn’t really count?

2.      If you had a boss like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, would it inspire you to “close” the deal (work harder and succeed), or would he push you to give up because of the pressure?

3.      Is it better to be a “do-er” like the gentleman in the star-spangled-banner thong who delighted us with his classy performance (one of the most awesome things I’ve ever seen). Or is it better to sit back and enjoy the show of “life” and let others do it all? Do you think it’s acceptable if someone decides to do “nothing” with their lives?

 

David Wong really got me laughing and I became very aware that he has a sick sense of humor like me while reading this. It’s an interesting concept that he formulizes here, the whole “you are what you do” theory. His tactics are unique and enlightening, for we have lived in an “it’s what’s inside that count’s” society for as long as I can remember. And that never made sense to me because most people don’t truly show anyone who they really are in fear that they will be judged by others. So I’d like to focus on my third question because this was the notion that stood out to me the most; it’s much more inspiring and fulfilling to be a “do-er” as far as I’m concerned.

What that hillbilly-punker-innovator showed us in breathtaking fashion is that first off, he does not give a flying squirrel what people think of him! I think that takes immense courage (and possibly a little craziness too) to go out and sing a song about a subject I’m pretty sure no one’s ever touched upon. But secondly, instead of sitting around thinking about it and daydreaming about putting together a fantastic ensemble, he went out and DID IT! I have always admired innovators of any kind. I look up to people that aren’t afraid to be unique and do the things that no one else does. I realize that a lot of people would be offended by this (the penis thrusts were a bit much at times). But they don’t have to watch it if they don't want to, that's the beauty of having freedom here in the good 'ol USA. They’re probably those conformists types that don’t “do” much anyways and sit around daydreaming about living “outside the box” of societies rules. Those are the people that really scare me! Not the old dude in a backyard singing about sex in a skimpy outfit. 

This article inspired me to keep living an open-minded lifestyle and to embrace being “the do-er” in every aspect of my life as I feel like I live this way already. In the end it’s only what “we do” and not “who we are inside” that counts, but it’s sensible to have a healthy balance of both. Without one or the other, we’d be a bunch of lazy pricks wandering around wondering why nothing happened in our lives. But if someone wants to sit around and “do nothing”, that’s their choice. If they are a good person deep down, then that’s all that really matters to me.