Build a Logical Argument by Clarifying Facts

¶ … build a logical argument by clarifying facts and speaking to a particular audience; and the conclusions must be strong and communicated well so that the intended audience can logically say, "I understand and agree with that."

Marc Siegel, a professor of Medicine at New York University and also a doctor with a practice, wrote an argument based on the doctor's role in treating pain and suffering by helping the patient end their life -- euthanasia. He was persuasive to me in his argument for several reasons: 1) He is a medical doctor who has taken the Hippocratic Oath and believes in helping patient's whenever possible; 2) He is logical and factual when he talks about some illnesses and conditions in which there is no cure; 3) He supports his arguments with the sound moral and ethical facts that show the audience just how much certain people suffer, and have a very low quality of life -- so low that in fact they are not living, but existing, and; 4) That it is actually far more cruel to allow a patient to suffer in pain and anguish through a terminal illness without hope of recovery, than helping to ease their pain and suffering by at least taking away some of the pain through opiates. The most compelling part of his argument is that he believes in the use of modern drugs "in the name of relieving suffering, not as a murder weapon."

Personal Persuasion- When dealing with issues like euthanasia, abortion, etc. many people already have strong views -- usually based on their own religious or cultural viewpoint. For many, no amount of logical argument will convince them that it is more compassionate and kind to help a patient end their suffering -- since these people think that it only God who can give or take life. However, if one really stops to think and analyze what a doctor's job is, one finds that they take an oath to "do no harm" and to "cure if possible." By withholding medications than can ease pain and suffering, they are actually harming the patient, which is opposite of their Hippocratic Oath. Since Dr. Siegel's argument were based on logic, not emotion, then I believe my overview of the subject would persuade an audience. The material was based on fact, not logical fallacies, and showed a clear progression of ideas that made sense to the audience in terms of helping with suffering. In essence, one cannot dispute the facts of the case -- only the interpretation and value set. If one believes that yes, life is sacred, but that there is a difference between living and existing, how would one logically wish a slow, painful, lingering death on anyone, particularly anyone they cared about. Easing someone's pain through the use of pain-killers (opiates) does not "kill" the patient. Increasing dosages that are often required at later stages of disease treatment may cause other organ systems to weaken, but if the patient is in such terrible agony that they cannot live a full life, move out of their bed, or even sometimes interact with others, do we not, as a society, have the moral obligation to help them end their painful existence? I believe we do, and that Dr. Siegel's arguments are sound reasons that prove the case from an objective, medical viewpoint.