CRITIQUE EVALUATION

CRITIQUE EVALUATIONA N Wilson: Mercy killing is not a crime it is a brave and selfless act of love

The articleTHE AUTHORA. N. WilsonWriterAndrew Norman Wilson is an English writer and newspaper columnist, known for his critical biographies, novels, works of popular history and religious views. WikipediaBorn: October 27, 1950 (age 62), England, United KingdomEducation: New College, Oxford, Rugby School, St Stephen's House, OxfordAwards: E. M. Forster AwardNominations: Locus Award for Best Non-Fiction

MERCY KILLING / EUTHANASIAWhat is it?Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide (dying) , doctor-assisted dying (suicide) , and more loosely termed mercy killing, basically means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering. Some interpret euthanasia as the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Many disagree with this interpretation, because it needs to include a reference to intractable suffering. - medicalnewstodaySUMMARYThe author agrees strongly to legalize euthanasia. He wishes to change the law to allow euthanasia. He gave few examples of where euthanasia was practiced.1) Frances Inglis ended her sons life who was in a vegetative state.2) Dr.Dawson ended King George Vs life.3) The author regretted not ending his mothers life when she was suffering.

SUMMARYHe states a few reasons on why society refuses legalizing euthanasia.Firstly, it means willful killing is allowed and also murders can be manipulated.To change the law would be actually to allow willful killing. And what is to stop an actual murderer inventing some cock-and-bull story in which their victim implored to be put out of their agony?

SUMMARYHowever, he did argue that the authorities should be able to differentiate between murder and mercy killing.If a good police officer or a good prosecuting counsel could not distinguish between tragic cases of this kind and cases of malicious murder, then they would surely be in the wrong profession. The differences are palpable and obvious.

SUMMARYSecondly, many religions are completely against euthanasia.The only objections which would carry weight in these cases are supposedly religious ones. Life, it might be argued, is a gift from God and we are not permitted to take away a gift which has been bestowed from above.

SUMMARYIn his opinion, law has to be changed in order to allow euthanasia.The law should allow suicides, assisted suicides and actual mercy killings in such tragic cases as we have seen this week.

EVALUATION TONE

-Strongly for euthanasiaHe used very direct and bold statement to express his support:

He used the words brave, selfless and love to describe mercy killing. All of which carry nuances of positivity.TONEHe used the the story regarding Frances and Tom Inglis to convey his support for euthanasia.

He called Frances Inglis a brave mother for trying to kill Tom Inglis by injecting pure heroine in his blood stream.

This shows that he agrees with what Frances Inglis did.

STYLE OF WRITING

Professional- He included a few counter arguments to make his article appear unbiased and well thought of. - Most probably because the author is a seasoned and experienced writer.

Counter arguments

LAWThe author reasoned that with the legalization of euthanasia, some irresponsible parties might misuse the law for their own benefit.

However, the author then stated

Counter arguments

RELIGION-The author also argued that the only acceptable reason for being against euthanasia is in the name of religion. - Holding life dear and as Gods gift.- However this is only up to individual and the law should not be able ban people from choosing to do euthanasia

STYLE OF WRITINGDaringUsed bold statements when addressing a sensitive issueMercy killing is not a crime- it is a selfless act of loveAdmitting that he would have euthanize his own motherSaying that Frances Inglis is brave and that he salute the courage and the love.

language Very declamatory in his use of language Expresses his feelings or opinions with great force. Used strong and powerful words.I too would have shouted in rage and scorn Tremendous braveryTill the day I dieWe must change the lawThe law should allow suicides, assisted suicides and actual mercy killings

CONCLUSIONThe author is very clear and direct in voicing his opinion. Strongly for euthanasia.Understands the use of powerful words to effect readers.Is not afraid of offending the public in voicing out his opinion.