Assisted Suicide-Rebuttal
Rebuttal: Physician Assisted Suicide Rebuttal: Physician Assisted Suicide Assisted suicide has been a controversial topic since long before this past election. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is when a physician gives a patient, usually terminally ill, the means to end their life by self-administered lethal injection or an overdose of drugs (Marker). PAS should not be confused with euthanasia, which is when a person other than the patient causes the death. Ben Mattlin’s article, “Suicide by Choice?
Not So Fast,” argues that the Massachusetts measure to make physician assisted suicide legal in cases for those who have six months or less to live, should not be supported. Mattlin contends that passing the “right to die,” will lead to abuse and coercion of patients that feel forced to end their lives (Mattlin, 2012). Mattlin’s article cites that in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, where physician assisted suicides have been made legal, there has been scant evidence of abuse and in Massachusetts alone there were over 200,000 cases of elder abuse in 2010 (Mattlin, 2012).
He uses two seemingly similar points to support his own rationalization and applies a scare tactic to substitute fear for reason (Moore, 2009). Mattlin bases his claim on comparing the abuse of physician assisted death in other states to elder abuse in Massachusetts, committing a rhetorical analogy. This is also an example of the slippery slope fallacy (Moore, 2009). Since elderly abuse is already so prominent, “how will assisted suicide be abused if it becomes legal? ” While the context of abuse is similar, Mattlin states nothing to support that elder abuse leads to assisted death abuse but implies that PAS abuse will rise if legalized.
The Massachusetts measure would apply to those having terminal illnesses with six month or less to live, however, Mattlin uses his own experience as a sufferer of disbilitating spinal muscular atrophy to argue his opinion. This is an example of the straw man fallacy (Moore, 2009) because Mattlin’s initial prognosis of not living past the age of two (Mattlin, 2012), is a misinterpretaton of legalizing PAS for terminally ill patients with less than six month to live. In the article, it is evident that Mattlin concedes his situation is atypical, but he uses his anomoly to support the validity of his point.
Now nearly 50 years old, a husband and father with a career, Mattlin points out that doctors’ needs to render judgement and opinion is a source of coercion that limits patients’ alternatives to continue living. He argues that if not for his family’s support for continued medical intervention to keep him alive, his seeming diagnosis and prognosis left doctors questioning whether to extend his life. To have survived his affliction for this long and been able to have a fulfilling life does not make him an authority on the options for those suffering from terminal illnesses.
Using his own illness as a credible source is an appeal to authority even though he is not a medical expert nor has he claimed any other reputable sources for his opinion other than experience. Mattlin leads the reader to conclude that physican assisted suicide is not really a voluntary, free choice, decision made by the patient to end their pain and suffering, but a limited decision that does not take into account depression and coercion. He makes emotional arguments on why the right to die should not be legalized, but the opinions are not based on reliable, credible, or valid data to logically support his argument.
