[2016 LA Club] Week 17

[heids]

Lauren and I thought it'd be really kind of us to give you a bit of a break over the holidays! or rather, Lauren has been flat out over lectures and I'm just friggin' lazy, shhhhhh

Both of the letters in this week's are comparatively (geddit) long, so you can either do a comparison, or just pick one and analyse that on its own - up to you!  Enjoy

Letter 1

The basic human right to choose our death

Finally, a critical success has been achieved for the many passionate and selfless people who have dedicated so much of their time striving to achieve what the majority of Victorians desire: the right of a competent individual to request medical assistance to die when faced with imminent death whilst suffering from an incurable and terminal illness in which pain is unable to be adequately palliated.

The Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into End of Life Choices has handed down a highly-commendable, level-headed and compassionate recommendation. This decision, once legislated for, will afford competent Victorians the right to request medical intervention in death when stated circumstances prevail. It is about choice for the individual.

It is also reassuring to see democracy in action. The multi-party committee worked in unison, devoid of the senseless political banter we have come to expect. It is hoped the recommendation will be legislated for expediently and other states follow suit. Rest assured that our current, archaic laws will not force Victorians or their loved ones to endure cruel and unnecessary suffering at the end of their lives. Individual choice in death is a basic human right.

Jane Morris, Malvern

Letter 2

We must respect and value all human life

The Victorian parliament must reject doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The first duty of a doctor is to "do no harm". The proposed legislation would turn them into killers. They are trained to save life and return a person to their physiological excellence; if that is not possible, then to care for them and provide palliative care, not kill them.

One of the report's recommendation states: "That the Victorian government work to prevent unnecessary emergency department presentations from aged care facilities and reinvest any savings into palliative care". What if the patient wants to go to hospital? The proposed legislation would go against the patient's wishes. It is disgusting to refuse hospital treatment to people in aged care facilities on the grounds of saving money. They are deemed second class citizens.

We spend a lot of money on preventing suicide and treating those at risk. Suicide is a tragedy for family and friends, but this legislation would encourage and facilitate it. How can you tell if a person has been coerced or is under duress or undue influence? The "right to die" will soon become the "duty to die". We must respect and value all human lives or we will lose respect for human life.

Dr Katrina Haller, Belgrave

[Anonymous]

Yay new pieces! Cooked this one in half an hour and didn't write a conclusion for this, and not sure if my clarity of expression is all that great.    

_{*hides in corner*}



____



In response to the recent Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Ends of Life Choices regarding euthanasia, there has been much outcry over the moral aspect of this controversial issue. In her editorial piece, Jane Morris contends with an optimistic tone that the legalisation of euthanasia would be a positive change for Victoria, and that the choice in death should be a basic human right that all individuals have access to. Contrastingly, Katrina Haller’s response provides a different insight to the issue, opposing Morris’s contention entirely and instead implying that the duty of doctors is to assist in the convalescence of patients, instead of quickening their deaths. Haller also voices her concerns for suicide prevention, insinuating that euthanasia could potentially increase suicide rates.
The title of the letter encapsulates Morris’s belief that it is a “basic human right” to choose to end one’s life. Coupled with her consistent use of inclusive language throughout the response, Morris prompts the audience to consider their own personal rights and portrays the right to euthanasia in a desirable position. Connotations of “the basic human right”, “choice for the individual” instils a sense of justice in the audience, and thus spurs the readers to believe that euthanasia should also be a right that they deserve. Morris emphasises the importance of euthanasia to the audience by employing words and phrases such as “unnecessary suffering”, “cruel”, and “imminent death”. These words of pain and suffering illustrates a scenario where and allows the audience to comprehend the necessity of having an option to find release. Morris commends the efforts of the committee responsible for the inquiry and her optimistic tone invites the audience to join her in extoling the organisations responsible. With words of assurance such as “hope” and “reassuring”, and affirming that the legislation will be in safe hands, Morris assuages the possible concerns the audience may have regarding euthanasia and lulls them in sharing her point of view that the legalisation of euthanasia will be tantamount to societal advancement.
On the other hand, Dr Haller’s vehemently contends that all life should be valued, and the legalisation of euthanasia may lead to social problems such as refusing to admit certain groups of patients and increased suicide rate. By likening doctors to “killers”, Haller reminds the audience that the role of doctors is to heal rather than “kill”. Repetition of the word “kill” connotes a negative vibe and strikes fear into the audience, allowing the audience to realise the dangers of euthanasia by likening doctors to murderers. Suggesting that euthanasia will “encourage and facilitate” suicide, Haller voices her concerns regarding the competency of the individual when making the choice to euthanize. Her use of rhetorical question invites the audience to consider the possibility of individuals “being coerced” or “under duress or undue influence”, once again highlighting the dangers of euthanasia. Haller instils uncertainty and doubt in the audience and thus sways them to her stance that euthanasia could be used for more sinister purposes than alleviating suffering.

[Anonymous]

The Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into End of Life Choices has recently recommended the right to choose our own death and has hence sparked contentious debate in the media. In Jane Morris’ letter to the editor, ‘The Basic Human Right to Choose Our Death’, she contends in an assertive tone that legalising euthanasia is the logical choice as it is a basic human right that should be available to everyone. In contrast, in Dr Katrina Haller’s letter to the editor, ‘We Must Respect and Value All Human Life’, she critically contends that all human life is sacred and rather than ending a life, we should be striving to provide care for those who are suffering greatly.

In Jane Morris’ letter to the editor, she advocates that it is an individual’s prerogative to choose their death. Morris uses phrases such as ‘basic human right’ and ‘choice’ in order to appeal to readers’ sense of justice and position readers to feel outraged that they are being denied the freedom to choose their own death. Furthermore, Morris describes the decision as being ‘level-headed’ and ‘devoid of senseless political banter’ in order to show that the Victorian Parliament of Inquiry has utilised logic and reason in deciding to recommend euthanasia. Through this, readers are persuaded to feel that the decision has been made without biases and in the best interests of society. In addition, the phrase ‘archaic laws’ has negative connotations associated with being out of touch and antiquated and this, coupled with the word ‘finally’ suggests that change is long overdue thus positioning readers to agree as no one wants to be considered outdated. By utilising emotive appeals and highlighting the ‘cruel and unnecessary suffering’ that our ‘loved ones’ will experience, Morris invokes the readers’ sense of sympathy and compassion and encourages the reader to place pressure on government authorities in order to ensure that rapid action is taken in order to formally legalise the recommendations.

Conversely, Haller asserts that legalising euthanasia will begin a rapid decline to forsaking all value and respect for human life. She compares and contrasts the role of doctors who are ‘trained to save a life’ yet if euthanasia is legalised, it will essentially ‘turn them into killers’. This positions readers to feel aghast and horrified that such a law would allow doctors who have taken the Hippocratic Oath ‘to do no harm’ and yet is now encouraged by the authorities to hurt patients. This is further supported by the fact that Katrina Haller is a doctor who would likely have taken the oath herself ‘to do no harm’, hence making her perspective more credible and trustworthy. The condemnatory nature of the phrases ‘disgusting’ and ‘on the grounds of saving money’ depicts the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry as driven by monetary gain and politics rather than placing the interests of the patients’ life first and foremost thus discrediting them in the eyes of the reader. Furthermore, Haller refutes Morris’ view that that the new law will increase patient choices by utilising rhetoric and stating ‘What if the patient wants to go to hospital?’. Through this, Haller highlights the irony that this law may actually ‘go against patient wishes’ and decrease patients’ choice thus positioning readers to see that this law may not be truly encouraging greater freedom of choice. Haller also challenges readers to reconsider their stance by employing rhetoric and asking the reader to consider if a person has been ‘coerced’ or is ‘under duress or undue influence’. She brings attention to the fact that it is nearly impossible to accurately determine the validity and accuracy of a person’s decision to commit doctor-assisted suicide and that no one person would have the capacity to hold such heavy responsibility. 

[literally lauren]

In response to the recent Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Ends of Life Choices regarding euthanasia, there has been much outcry over the moral aspect of this controversial issue. In her editorial piece, Jane Morris contends with an optimistic tone that the legalisation of euthanasia would be a positive change for Victoria, and that the choice in death should be a basic human right that all individuals have access to. Contrastingly, Katrina Haller’s response provides a different insight to the issue, opposing Morris’s contention entirely and instead implying that the duty of doctors is to assist in the convalescence of patients, instead of quickening their deaths. Haller also voices her concerns for suicide prevention, insinuating that euthanasia could potentially increase suicide rates. nice succinct intro

The title of the letter encapsulates Morris’s belief that it is a “basic human right” to choose to end one’s life. Coupled with her consistent use of inclusive language throughout the response, Morris prompts the audience to consider their own personal rights and portrays the right to euthanasia in a desirable light position. Connotations of “the basic human right”, “choice for the individual” instils expression/quote integration is a little muddled here a sense of justice in the audience, and thus spurs the readers to believe that euthanasia should also be a right that they deserve. Morris emphasises the importance of euthanasia to the audience by employing words and phrases such as “unnecessary suffering”, “cruel”, and “imminent death”. These words of pain and suffering illustrates careful with plurality. This may've been a typo but 'these words illustrates' isn't right a scenario where words missing? and allows the audience to comprehend the necessity of having an option to find release. Morris commends the efforts of the committee responsible for the inquiry and her optimistic tone invites the audience to join her in extolling the organisations responsible. With words of assurance such as “hope” and “reassuring”, and affirming that the legislation will be in safe hands, Morris assuages the possible concerns the audience may have regarding euthanasia and lulls them in sharing her point of view that the legalisation of euthanasia will be tantamount to societal advancement. good use of verbs here

On the other hand, Dr Haller’s vehemently contends that all life should be valued, and the legalisation of euthanasia may lead to social problems such as refusing to admit certain groups of patients and increased suicide rate. By likening doctors to “killers” is this really what he's doing? Isn't he contrasting them with "killers?", Haller reminds the audience that the role of doctors is to heal rather than “kill”. Repetition of the word “kill” connotes a negative vibe bit informal and strikes fear into the audience, allowing the audience rather than talking about what the language allows, try and focus on what the author intends! to realise the dangers of euthanasia by likening doctors to murderers. Suggesting that euthanasia will “encourage and facilitate” suicide, Haller voices her concerns regarding the competency of the individual when making the choice to euthanize. Her use of rhetorical question invites the audience to consider the possibility of individuals “being coerced” or “under duress or undue influence”, once again highlighting the dangers of euthanasia. if you find yourself needing to repeat phrases like this, it probably means you could restructure your paragraphs to avoid this problem. Haller instils uncertainty and doubt in the audience and thus sways them to her stance that euthanasia could be used for more sinister purposes than alleviating suffering.

V good para conclusions, and some decent unpacking of language; be careful with your phrasing and keep up the good work

The Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into End of Life Choices has recently recommended the right to choose our own death and has hence sparked contentious debate in the media. In Jane Morris’ letter to the editor, ‘The Basic Human Right to Choose Our Death’, she contends in an assertive tone that legalising euthanasia is the logical choice as it is a basic human right that should be available to everyone. In contrast, in Dr Katrina Haller’s letter to the editor, ‘We Must Respect and Value All Human Life’, she critically contends that all human life is sacred and rather than ending a life, we should be striving to provide care for those who are suffering greatly good intro

In Jane Morris’ letter to the editor, she advocates that it is an individual’s prerogative to choose their death. Morris uses phrases such as ‘basic human right’ and ‘choice’ in order to appeal to readers’ sense of justice and position readers to feel outraged that they are being denied the freedom to choose their own death. Furthermore, Morris describes the decision as being ‘level-headed’ and ‘devoid of senseless political banter’ in order to show that the Victorian Parliament of Inquiry has utilised logic and reason in deciding to recommend euthanasia. Through this, readers are persuaded to feel that the decision has been made without biases and in the best interests of society. In addition, the phrase ‘archaic laws’ has negative connotations associated with being out of touch and antiquated and this, coupled with the word ‘finally’ suggests that change is long overdue thus positioning readers to agree as no one wants to be considered outdated great step-by-step feel to your discussion here; very clear and well-explained . By utilising emotive appeals and highlighting the ‘cruel and unnecessary suffering’ that our ‘loved ones’ will experience, Morris invokes the readers’ sense of sympathy and compassion and encourages the reader to place pressure on government authorities in order to ensure that rapid action is taken in order to formally legalise the recommendations.

Conversely, Haller asserts that legalising euthanasia will begin a rapid decline to forsaking all value and respect for human life. She compares and contrasts the role of doctors who are ‘trained to save a life’ this sentence is structured a bit weird: 'she compares the role of doctors...(with...?)' what is the comparison/contrast? I get that it's 'killers,' but that's not reflected in your sentence structure at the moment yet if euthanasia is legalised, it will essentially ‘turn them into killers’. This positions readers to feel aghast and horrified that such a law would allow doctors who have taken the Hippocratic Oath ‘to do no harm’ unless something is mentioned in the article, avoid using it in your piece. L.A. requires very little external knowledge and yet is now encouraged by the authorities to hurt patients. This is further supported by the fact that Katrina Haller is a doctor who would likely have taken the oath herself ‘to do no harm’, hence making her perspective more credible and trustworthy. The condemnatory nature of the phrases ‘disgusting’ and ‘on the grounds of saving money’ depicts the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry as driven by monetary gain and politics rather than placing the interests of the patients’ life first and foremost thus discrediting them in the eyes of the reader. Furthermore, Haller refutes Morris’ view that that the new law will increase patient choices by utilising rhetoric and stating ‘What if the patient wants to go to hospital?’. Through this, Haller highlights the irony that this law may actually ‘go against patient wishes’ and decrease patients’ choice thus positioning readers to see that this law may not be truly encouraging greater freedom of choice. Haller also challenges readers to reconsider their stance by employing rhetoric what do you mean by this? This is kind of like saying 'employing language' - can you be more specific here? and asking the reader to consider if a person has been ‘coerced’ or is ‘under duress or undue influence’. She brings attention to aim for a stronger verb: 'showcases,' 'foregrounds,' 'emphasises' etc. the fact that it is nearly impossible to accurately determine the validity and accuracy of a person’s decision to commit doctor-assisted suicide and that no one person would have the capacity to hold such heavy responsibility.

Loving the logical workings out you're showing here Some minor sentence structure issues and a few general sentences that are worth clearing up, but other than that, v good effort!