My Speech Over Doctor Assisted Suicide

Is the teacher expecting you to speak your opinions or to prove a point with facts?

 

I disagree. However, I am about to eat and don't have time to discuss the absurd and fallacious nature of each of your arguments.

 

Pretty poor arguments you have there.

1) These assisted suicides are done when the patient asks for them. Chances are, these patients would do these when they feel that they will live their life in pain or they feel they have a second class exhistance.

2) State and Religion should have no relationship. Also, you are somewhat implying that non-religious people have no quelm to killing.

3) If patients want to wait for this miracle, then let them but also give them the choice to not wait for it.

 

Your essay is very obvious. You should take a non-standard viewpoint on the issue (religion, legality, etc) *< -example of obvious overused points*

Your standalone points are also very weak.


*An edit occurred here

 

Redundant and unnecessary. Combine the sentences together and remove the introducing bit. My take on it:
"Doctor-assisted suicide is an act of murder, not mercy, and should be treated as such throughout America."

Quite a blank sentence now, though. Perhaps it could be spiced up with more evocative imagery and flow, but you need to minimize redundancy in speeches.

Minimize the use of yourself; that is, the use of the first-person pronoun. The more personal you make your piece, the far more subjective it seems, and the end result of that usually ends up detracting from your essay.

Also, you'll need to preface your speech before hammering out your stance. Perhaps you could talk about the rates of doctor-assisted suicide in the USA, or the current popular moral stance on the issue.

Here, you're telling the audience what you're going to talk about. This is basically like a movie trailer showing every plot twist in the movie. When you're outlining your points, do it vaguely enough that it's not completely spoiling your speech before hand. Obviously, you still need to somewhat sketch upon your ideas to preface your points. But please, just don’t use your original.

Change “each” to "every"; change “a” to "the". Small changes, but when you're speaking, it shows. “Every” helps to establish that all doctors are taking the oath, while “the” frames the Hippocratic oath as the Hippocratic oath.

What are the cons of having the patient not trusting the doctor? Establish this firmly with examples. “In my eyes killing” pretty much killed any hope the sentence it was contained in had. And again with the ‘weakening of the oath’, followed by more ambiguous problems. Reduce repetitiveness unless you’re intending it, and then only when you’re absolutely certain it will help your argument by emphasizing.

Unless your debate is over religion itself, try not to bring up religion as a point. It’s too subjective and causes too much unnecessary troubles for your essay, one of them being controversy over religion itself. For an example, your last line. “That is only if the person who claims to be Christian is true to their religion.” I can guarantee that you will piss people off with that line, whether you intended to or not, and in any case, it will leave a black mark against your paper for the remainder of it. Avoid bringing religion up in your paper. Suggestion? Bring up morality and ethics instead. Your paper is clean so far, and it’s not necessary to dirty it up by bringing up a religion debate into your essay.

Don’t start off your points by saying that they are points. Generally, it should be obvious to the reader.

Don’t tell the reader what to do. Suggest and try to persuade him/her, but don’t tell them.

Stylistically, there’s nothing wrong with this sentence. However, it’s very weak and too subjective. You need to prove things, not make a general statement and hope that it sounds catchy enough that people won’t think about it.
Incidentally, I thought the whole point of a miracle recovery was that it was a miracle.

I have to consider it? I do? Really?

I thought this was an example in of itself. No need to reiterate it.

Another argument thing, but if it’s a slim chance, I’m assuming that it’s very unlikely to happen, and if I was the patient suffering, I want to go, and not suffer so that I can comfort my living relatives. I’m the one suffering most, right?

No, I guess we shouldn’t.

It isn’t necessary to inform the audience that you’re concluding.
Don’t tell them your belief. Say that it shouldn’t be illegal. Outline your points to reconfirm that.
“Once again” is unnecessary.
You don’t need to thank the audience for bearing with your speech. Finish off strongly and end by leaving a strong feeling in them. It would work very well if you ended by saying, “When it comes to the question of the implications of doctor-assisted suicide, the answer to that question is, ‘it is an act of murder’”. It’ll depend on how you’re saying it as well, but that depends on your tone.

 

Those arguments were horrible.

1. This one is based on tradition. If a doctor must do no harm then the following treatments would no longer be used: Chemotherapy, Bone marrow transfers, even small things like braces. Doctor assisted suicide is painless.

2. I don't really even need to address this. Religion is a personal thing, it is up to the patient not religious 'morals'. Doesn't make sense at all.

3. It is up to the patient whether they want to go through 6 months of pain (I personally wouldn't). No one is forcing them. This point is invalid because it is not based on facts.


Overall you sound like a naive Christian kid, which is all you are.

 

Also, this may be helpful. Note the key difference in the following terms:

Voluntary Euthanasia: A doctor takes steps to end a patient's life, essentially killing the patient

Assisted Suicide: A doctor prepares steps to end a patient's life, but the final step is taken by the patient himself / herself

 

I forgot about this completely