Marcia Keaton's Argumentative Analysis

1752 Words8 Pages
Helen Sumner, a mother of an unborn child, lies at Mercy Hospital in a comatose condition and is drawing a lot of unnecessary attention. Some (like journalist, Marcia Keaton) believe that Helen is dead and needs to be taken off life support immediately, which Keaton admits is keeping her alive. There are differing opinions on this situation and I feel the need to share my own. Marcia Keaton makes her views on this situation known by expressing her thoughts as it is. She doesn’t sugar-code any of the message and neither will I. Keaton’s main argument for taking Helen off the life support is that it costs too much money and the money can go to better causes than saving the unborn child’s life. Keaton also upholds the position and power of the…show more content…
Euthanasia is intentionally ending a person’s life from suffering (Glau and Jacobsen 399). What patient in the hospital is not suffering? Every patient is suffering to some degree; otherwise he/she would not be in the hospital. To many people, euthanasia is considered as a slippery slope to medical practice. This euthanasia idea can go so far as to being imposed on people who aren’t even in a comatose state. Who will be next in line to “relief him/herself from suffering?” Anne E. Weis quotes a Jesuit priest saying, “‘Legalized euthanasia would be a confession of despair in the medical profession…It would be the denial of hope for further progress against presently incurable maladies.’” If Helen was to be taken off life support, it would only enhance the ideas of euthanasia. And if Keaton wants to talk about money, what about all the money that going to be put into euthanasia practices? Are we going to spend money and time to find out the quickest way to kill yourself rather than using that money and time to find a cure? Would families be alright if they knew they allowed a mercy killing when it could have been
Open Document