What is the main contention/thesis of the entry?

What reason(s) (if any) are offered for that contention?

What objection(s) (if any) to the view are considered?

I found the entry EASY / REASONABLY EASY / MODERATELY HARD/ DIFFICULT to

understand.

I was UNABLE / ABLE / EASILY ABLE able to work out what the writer’s
reasoning/argument in the entry was.

The author WAS/WAS NOT factually correct regarding the nature of the theories and
phenomena they discussed.

The argument presented in the entry was VERY CONVINCING / SOMEWHAT

CONVINCING / NOT AT ALL CONVINCING to me.

The presentation of the piece was ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE. Why?

EXAMPLE 1

U4389981

Week 3 Mini-Paper
Topic: “Voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in Australia.” Do you agree or
disagree? Why?

I disagree with the statement—euthanasia (voluntary or otherwise) is wrong and should

never be legalised in Australia. I will focus here on arguments relating to voluntary
euthanasia in cases of terminal illness, as I believe these are the most compelling cases for
those in favour of euthanasia, and thus demonstrating why assisted dying in these cases is
unacceptable should be sufficient to show that it is never acceptable.

As Kant said, those committing suicide are failing to respect their own rationality in placing
the avoidance of suffering over their rational will to live (Cholbi 2017). Rationality is the
source of human dignity, and it is our moral duty to respect human dignity above all else.
Suicide, of any form, even voluntary euthanasia, thus cannot be condoned.

Some may argue that in cases where euthanasia is chosen in the face of a loss of rational
capacity such as in dementia, that Kant’s arguments above fail. In short, it is the opposite of
failing to respect rationality in these cases, rather euthanasia here is to respect rationality so
much as to not wish to live without it. In response to this I offer a slightly different argument
in defence of my view—that of the slippery slope. Although euthanasia may be morally
permissible in severe cases of dementia, deciding when it is permissible or not is very
unclear and there is a risk that we will allow assisted dying in advance of when it would no
longer fall foul of Kant’s concerns about respect for rationality. At what point is rationality
diminished sufficiently for euthanasia to be permissible? It seems better to ban euthanasia
altogether and avoid falling into a moral trap.

Words: 282

Works Cited

Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/suicide/>.

EXAMPLE 2

Week 3 Mini-Paper
Topic: “Voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in Australia.” Do you agree or
disagree? Why?

Voluntary euthanasia is the assisted dying of a person with their permission. Whether or not
the practice is ethical or not is of grave moral significance in modern society. There are
many countries in which euthanasia is legal such as Switzerland and Holland. It is not legal
in Australia. Perhaps it should be?

Utilitarians say that the killing of innocent human beings is never acceptable. On this view,
euthanasia can never be acceptable. Deontologists, in contrast, say that the morality of
euthanasia is dependent on the outcomes of the act. They do argue that in most cases,
although euthanasia may minimise suffering of the patient being assisted to die, the amount
of harm done to family and friends is significant enough to outweigh the avoided suffering.
This means that euthanasia cannot be acceptable. Rights theorists argue that people should
have control over their own lives and bodies and thus euthanasia, as long as it is truly
voluntary, should be within the scope of acceptable action of any individual. To these
theorists, euthanasia should be legalised.

This is a very complex issue that is of grave moral significance. We must have an answer.

Words: 200

Works Cited

Tännsjö, T. (2005). Moral dimensions. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 331(7518), 689–691.

EXAMPLE 3

Week 3 Mini-Paper
Topic: “Voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in Australia.” Do you agree or
disagree? Why?

At the moment, too many people are dying in pain and suffering, when they could have a
peaceful death at a time of their choosing. Voluntary euthanasia must be legalised within
Australia. As I see it, there are two key reasons why this view is correct.

First, because in some circumstances, particularly cases of severe cancers, there is no

possibility of a peaceful and painless death without assisted dying. In these cases, assisted
dying not only reduces the suffering of the individual patient but it also serves to preserve
human dignity. Both the reduction of suffering and the preservation of human dignity are
seen by both consequentialist and Kantian moral theorists (respectively) to be key factors in
deciding what actions we should and should not undertake (Tännsjö 2005).

A second reason why voluntary euthanasia should be legalised is because it is already

taking place, albeit in an unregulated and untidy manner. Current best practice hospice and
palliative care relies heavily on the use of opiate painkillers in the final weeks and days
before death and ultimately, it is very often the use of such painkillers hasten death in the
patient. If this hastening of death is permissible, then why is an earlier and more controlled
hastening at the time of the patients choosing not permissible? One can only imagine that
this is simply because of squeamishness about the intentional killing of others. This seems
an antiquated throwback to anthropocentric ideas concerning the special significance of
human life and the sanctity of life. It is odd, however, to see suffering as perpetuating the
sanctity of life. How is a painful life sanctified?

Words: 265

Works Cited

Tännsjö, T. (2005). Moral dimensions. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 331(7518), 689–691.