Fluent Essays

Check attachments for full assignment details please Euthanasia is the main document there is also the rubric and an annotation guide to follow and the main question guide check attachments please 4 Euthanasia Olawoyin Ibitoye Professor Oakes Chamberlain university 09/19/2021 Euthanasia Euthanasia Review Euthanasia is defined as the practice of killing a patient to limit their suffering. The physician causes the death of the patient from an incurable or severe condition. The life termination exercise may involve injection with drugs to induce coma by a doctor and stop the heart from operating. Euthanasia takes place in a medical facility in the presence of medical staff. It slightly differs from physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which refers to the “prescription of lethal medication be voluntarily self-administered by the patient.” Euthanasia causes intentional death. Multiple perceptions surround euthanasia. Some people think the process is illegal, while others believe it is better to end suffering after mutual agreement between the patient and the physicians. Mixed reactions erupt from euthanasia as people try to understand the ethical and legal issues surrounding the exercise. The dilemma emanates from whether people should decide whether to live or die (Balynska et al., 2019). Therefore, this essay argues both sides of euthanasia and identifies which side is stronger and more persuasive than the other. Pros of Euthanasia Euthanasia terminates patient’s suffering and relieves their people from mental, psychological, and financial strains. Euthanasia offers a quality dying experience and is used as the last resort when all other options fail. Instead of waiting for the patient to die in lengthy pain, the physicians decide to end their lives more comfortably without pain. People should dictate their lives, whether to die or live; thus should choose to die if they cannot withstand pain or incurable diseases. Euthanasia enables the patients to end the guilty of burdening their caregivers. Patients may feel ashamed of their status and dependence on people thus decides to undertake euthanasia because they believe death will still happen either way. Cons of Euthanasia Euthanasia contradicts the sanctity of life. Religiously, life is sovereign, and only God should take it from human beings. Euthanasia abuses human rights to life thus considered unethical. Patients often decide to undertake the exercise under emotional influence and may regret it if given another chance to be alive. Euthanasia may undermine the doctor-patient relationship because physicians focus on saving lives, but the patient may demand to undergo euthanasia to end their suffering. Euthanasia is unethical and should be considered illegal because it undermines human life and dignity. Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors and exposes the vulnerable to pressure to end their lives. Legalizing euthanasia may put the lives of the vulnerable under pressure and lead to less care for the terminally ill because their caregivers take euthanasia as an option for prolonged illness or suffering thus may be reluctant to serve the sick (Ten Have & Neves, 2021). The cons of euthanasia outweigh the pros; thus, the disadvantages are more substantial and persuasive than the advantages. Euthanasia is an illegal exercise and should be discouraged because it devalues human life and puts the terminally ill at risk of losing their lives unlawfully. Life has intrinsic value and dignity, and people should strive to protect the vulnerable regardless of their conditions. Ending someone’s life because they suffer from severe pain or incurable condition is unethical. Assisting people to live should be a priority to everybody, including the patient, medical practitioners, and the general public. Euthanasia may be against the sanctity of life based on religion and traditions (Hurn & Badman‐King, 2019). References Balynska, O. M., Blahuta, R. I., & Sereda, V. V. (2019). Euthanasia or palliative care: legal principles of the implementation in the context of the realization of human rights to life (Scopus). Hurn, S., & Badman‐King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end‐of‐life care. Medical anthropology quarterly, 33(1), 138-155. Ten Have, H., & Neves, M. D. C. P. (2021). Euthanasia, General. In Dictionary of Global Bioethics (pp. 493-494). Springer, Cham. Week 5 Source Evaluation Worksheet First read the notes that begin on p. 3 of this handout and the table that follows. Then, complete the analysis for each of your sources. Part 1: Annotation Using APA format, identify the source and write a concise annotation that summarizes the central theme and scope of the book or article. A sample annotation can be found in the directions for this assignment. Annotation 1 Annotation 2 (Continue for as many annotations as you have developed) Example: Annotation 1 Waite, L. J., Goldschneider, F. K., & Witsberger, C. (1986). Nonfamily living and t he erosion of traditional family orientations among young adults. American Sociological Review, 51, 541-554. The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males. Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self-sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living Part 2: Source Evaluation Use the following criteria to evaluate each source: a. How current is this the source you are using? (If not current – explain why information is still applicable) Source 1 Source 2 (Continue for as many sources as you have developed) Example 2a 2a. While this source is not current, it has formed the basis for numerous follow-up studies and it frequently cited in the literature; it has both historical value and also serves as a base-point for tracking changing attitudes. b. How authoritative, credible, reliable? (For example: recognized expert; peer-reviewed journal; trusted site such as .edu, .gov, .mil; experienced and knowledgeable in the field; information consistent across several sources, etc.) Source 1 Source 2 (Continue for as many sources as you have developed) Example 2b 2b. This is a scholarly source; the source is credible, reliable and authoritative. The authors were experts in their fields, published their study in a peer-reviewed journal, and the study has held up under rigorous scrutiny by other experts in the field. c. Briefly state specifically how this source provides evidence that strongly supports your conclusion. For example, “the article discusses significant evidence that this diet provides all essential nutrients and supports my view that the diet is healthy” “this study shows that this diet is deficient in vitamin D and supports my point that this diet is not healthy” “this survey revealed that obesity is on a rapid rise among all demographic groups and supports my view that obesity is epidemic” Source 1 Source 2 (Continue for as many sources as you have developed) Example 2c 2c. This source strongly supports my thesis that the current pattern of young adults remaining with family because they cannot afford independent living due to student loan obligations is having a negative effect on young adults developing self-sufficiency and individualism. d. If the information is “popular” or if it is from a blog, from a marketing site, or is persuasive in nature (i.e., an editorial or opinion piece, or a publication of a special interest group such as a trade organization, union, etc.) explain why you are using the source and why you cannot use a more substantive or scholarly source. Source 1 Source 2 (Continue for as many sources as you have developed) Example 2d 2d. This source is popular; it is used to show how public opinion was influenced by advertising. Notes: Evaluating Sources 1. In 2b, rate your journal and periodical sources (whether you are looking at hard copy or on-line) as scholarly, substantive or popular. The Table “Distinguishing between Scholarly and Non-scholarly Periodicals” will work for evaluating either print or on-line journals, newspapers, and periodicals. 2. Beware of bias in any specific article. Determine if the source is authoritative, credible, reliable, current and unbiased. (If not current, then information can be rated “valid, regardless of age,” -- i.e., a 1999 web-based article on the American Civil War is not “current,” but can be “valid regardless of age.”) All sources should be authoritative, credible, reliable, current and unbiased. If bias is found, state if bias may or may not affect the credibility and reliability of the information you will use and how you will compensate for possible bias. 3. For websites, generally speaking, .gov and .mil sites are acceptable sources in academic papers. Most .edu websites will be acceptable, but analyze under the criteria in 2 above. 4. If the website is a .com, .org or .biz website, you must further evaluate for authority, reliability and credibility. Never use a .com, .org or .biz site without evaluating across these criteria. Be especially careful about blogs – generally speaking, don’t use them. Many newspaper and magazines also publish to websites; evaluate those just as you would a journal or periodical. a. Authoritative · Who are the author(s)? · Are they recognized experts in their field? – check the <About> column or google the author’s name? · What is the level of education of the author? Experience? Knowledge of the subject? · Is the information at a level appropriate to an upper-level academic paper? b. Credible · How does the information compare to other, similar information? Always look for more than one source – verify that all points of view are represented c. Reliable · Is it timely? · Does it come from a trusted source? Distinguishing Between Scholarly and Non-Scholarly Publications SCHOLARLY SUBSTANTIVE POPULAR Examples American Journal of Nursing JAMA New England Journal of Medicine American Journal of Kidney Diseases National Geographic Psychology Today NY Times The Atlantic Time Vanity Fair Huffington Post USA Today Purpose & Use · Knowledge dissemination · Reports of original research · in-depth topic analysis · Statistical information · For profit · Current events and news · Introduces a subject · Interviews · Analysis and opinion · For profit · Current events and news · Overview of topic · Entertainment · Sell products Audience · Reader knows the field (e.g., specialists) · General audience · General audience Authors · Researchers · Academics · Scholars · Journalists · Freelance writers · Specialists or scholars · Freelance writers · Staff writers · Journalists Content & Language · Description of research methods with conclusions · Objective · Assumes knowledge of language and specialist jargon · Article may have a specific structure · Usually peer-reviewed · Explanation of a subject · Interpretation of a research article · May or may not be objective · Use of non-technical vocabulary · Shorter articles than in scholarly publications · May be biased toward a particular point of view · Less depth · Everyday language · Often written like a story Publishers · Professional organizations · University or scholarly presses · Research institutions · Commercial entities · Trade and professional organizations · Commercial entities · Trade organizations Sources · Includes bibliography and/or notes · Includes extensive citation of sources · Includes author credentials · Sometimes includes sources · May / may not include author credentials · Rarely includes citations of sources · Rarely includes author credentials Graphics · Includes graphs, charts, and tables · Advertising is very rare · Illustrated, often with photographs · Advertising is present · Heavily illustrated · Lots of advertising Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: · Textbook: review Chapter 6 · Lesson · Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (You may include sources you developed in Week 3 if they meet scholarly criteria). Introduction You have arrived at the third part of the Course Project. By this week, you should have collected the sources that you need to support, with relevant evidence, the position you have taken on the issue you chose, and the three aspects of the issue you will write about. This week you will submit a thesis statement and an annotated bibliography of at least five sources that you will use in your paper. Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course: Week Task Week 1 Topic Selection Week 3 Issue Review (both sides) Week 5 Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides) Week 7 Argumentative Paper Instructions This week, submit the following: · A thesis statement stating your opinion/conclusion on the issue, the supporting points you will offer and at least one relevant opposing view you will address. · An annotated bibliography with evaluation of at least five (5) sources you intend to use in your final paper to support your claim. · These are sources that provide evidence to support that your claim should be accepted by the reader. · Scholarly sources are preferred and should be used where available; due to the nature of some of the topics, authoritative articles in very high quality substantive journals may also be acceptable. Use the Source Evaluation Worksheet to determine the following: · If your source is current · If it is not current, explain why you think it is acceptable. · If your source is credible, reliable, and authoritative · How well your source supports your thesis · If the annotation does not make this obvious, explain to your instructor how you will use it. · If your support is popular · If it is, explain to your instructor why you think it is acceptable. Prepare a citation, annotation, and evaluation for each source.  Writing Requirements (APA format) · Length: 100-150 words per source for Part 1; 50-80 words per source for Part 2 (not including title page or references page) · 1-inch margins · Double spaced · 12-point Times New Roman font · Title page · References page W5 Course Project Grading Rubric - 75 pts W5 Course Project Grading Rubric - 75 pts Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength 5 pts Meets length requirement 0 pts Does not meet length requirement 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThesis 5 pts A clear, concise and focused statement of the issue and the writer’s opinion/conclusion. with relevant supporting points, clearly stated, which can be expanded into complete body paragraphs. Mention of relevant opposing view which will be addressed. 4.25 pts The issue and the writer’s opinion/conclusion are clear. Supporting points are stated and mention is made of relevant opposing view.is made of relevant opposing view. 3.75 pts Thesis statement is present. Issue is stated, but writer’s opinion/conclusion not entirely clear. Supporting points are stated. 3 pts Thesis is unclear as to issue, writer’s opinion, or both. Supporting points are unclear. 0 pts Thesis is not present. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuantity of Sources 5 pts 5 or more sources 4.25 pts 4 sources 3.75 pts 3 sources 3 pts 2 sources 0 pts 1 or no sources 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality /Reliability of Sources 10 pts All works are from scholarly sources or highly authoritative sources. 8.5 pts Most works are from scholarly sources or highly authoritative sources. 7.5 pts Some works are from scholarly sources or highly authoritative sources. 6 pts Sources substantive or lower in quality. 0 pts Few or no sources reach even substantive level; popular sources cited. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecency of Sources 10 pts All sources less than 5 years old; if older, historical significance explained 8.5 pts 1 source older than 5 years w/no explanation of historical significance 7.5 pts 2 sources older than 5 years w/no explanation of historical significance 6 pts 3 sources older than 5 years w/no explanation of historical significance 0 pts 4 or more sources older than 5 years old w/no explanation of historical significance 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Fluency of Annotations 30 pts All annotations comprehensively describe scope source material; clearly conveying main idea and relationship of ideas in source to the topic and thesis of the essay and how source will be used in essay. 25.5 pts Most annotations comprehensively describe scope source material; give sense of main idea and relationship of ideas in source to the topic and thesis of the essay and how source will be used in essay. 22.5 pts Annotations are well-written but do not describe scope of source material; do not give clear idea of how source will be used in essay. 18 pts Annotations do not describe scope of source material and/or do not give idea of how they will be used in essay. 0 pts Annotations lack detail, give no idea of how they will be used in essay OR no annotations. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA and Documentation 10 pts Citations are formatted correctly. 8.5 pts There are a few formatting errors. 7.5 pts There are some formatting errors. 6 pts There are many and/or frequent formatting errors. 0 pts There is little or no adherence to APA format in the document. 10 pts Total Points: 75