In Defense of Voluntary Euthanasia - Essay Example

In the case of Hook, he presents a rebuttal only once, early in the article, by relating his experience where his suffering had led him to ask for euthanasia, which was denied, and all turned out well. In the other article, Singer and Siegler present evidence and a series of rebuttals, points in justification of euthanasia, for example, the case of Netherlands. They then systematically nullify these by their qualifiers, like why a similar policy will not be successful in America, or even that it is perhaps not completely successful in the Netherlands.

In the second case, the sheer number of rebuttals negated drives the point home. Another significant difference lies in the evidence presented in both articles. The only concrete piece of evidence provided by Hook is his near-death trauma, whereas Singer and Siegler, present an entire battery of evidence from various documents cited. They start with the example of the Netherlands and also provide deductive reasoning on how effective pain management or voluntary removal of life support can make euthanasia redundant, and that public policy should not allow the right to euthanasia on the grounds of possible misuse.

Most of Hook's assumptions are implicit, for instance about another possible heart attack, the probable suffering of his kin, and his age disallowing him to achieve anything further. They are also personal, and will not hold universally, as age is a factor particular to him, and may not be common with all other patients. And as he himself admits, the desire to live on at whatever cost is not uncommon. On the other hand, most of the assumptions made by the other article are explicit and are not limited in their premise.

Singer and Siegler provide precise definitions and technical reasons why and how euthanasia can actually become harmful to society. These articles making the claim for and against the case of euthanasia are equally strong and adequately present the two different points of view. The essential difference is that what compels reader attention for Hook is his voice emerging from genuine suffering, whereas Singer and Siegler derive their power purely on the basis of sound logic, and unshakeable faith in the medical profession as a giver, and not a taker of life.