Euphoria101
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
I don't think anyone's gonna reply to this, J Papi (not gonna tag lmao) I believe said he won't do more after someone yesterday, but it's worth a shot. I'm worried as I'm applying to Oxford, Durham and UCL.


Should Euthanasia be Legalised in the UK?
Euthanasia is the killing of someone with a incurable or terminal disease, and is often seen as a ‘compassionate’ way to allow someone to end their suffering. However, as this essay will argue, there are several factors to consider which ultimately show that euthanasia should remain illegal, for example because of the ‘bigger picture’ - there have been cases where some members of the disabled community feel like a burden on their families and feel pressured to consider euthanasia. It is also important to discuss the distinction, if any, between euthanasia and suicide.

Firstly, one must recognise that all doctors, as stated in the Hippocratic Oath, have a duty to preserve and protect all forms of life where possible. Perhaps for the sake of this argument, it is important to discuss the difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient themself asks for euthanasia, and contrastingly, involuntary euthanasia occurs where the friends, family and doctors believe it is in their best interest to die now, when it is less painful for everyone. However, both forms are unreasonable arguably. Even if the patient asks for it, doctors and nurses have a responsibility to protect life. Some may argue it is murder for them to kill a patient, or allow them the patient to kill themselves. On the other hand, one may maintain that medical professionals also have a duty to do what is best for the patient, and if the patient believes euthanasia will be best, nursers and doctors should not stand in their way. However, this argument is illogical; it appears to be strange for them to simply allow them to kill themselves for two reasons: the first is that medicine is advancing, and many doctors have many more treatment options now than in the past. The second reason is that, as aforementioned, doctors have a duty to preserve every life. Overall, to summarise, medical professionals must protect all lives and must not allow a patient to kill themselves.

Similarly, it may also be useful to discuss the differences between passive and active euthanasia and determine if this weakens the previous argument. Passive euthanasia refers to methods like intentionally not eating or taking medications to kill oneself, and active euthanasia refers to methods like lethal injections and drugs to do it. The idea of passive euthanasia creates issues; even if doctors should not allow their patients to euthanise, some argue that they cannot force patients to eat or take medication, so it should not be illegal for patients to refuse treatment. Of course the concept of active euthanasia is much more straight-forward as evidently doctors should not be allowed to actively kill their patients by administering drugs or injections. Thus, even though active euthanasia should remain illegal, it is difficult to implement laws against passive euthanasia as it seems inhumane to force someone to accept treatment/food.

However, the main argument for the legalisation of euthanasia is in relation to ‘compassion’. Many maintain that it is more compassionate to allow someone with an incurable disease to choose when and how to die in peace. On the other hand, the counterarguments for this are also in relation to the idea of compassion - many elderly and disabled people may feel like a burden on their families, and a pressure to consider euthanasia. Moreover, many argue that if euthanasia is a ‘treatment’ or solution for patients, many medical professionals will become ‘lazy’ and offer euthanasia to patients or quickly accept patients’ desires for it without much hesitation. But this is incredibly unlikely, as many doctors and nurses obviously chose to go into the field to save lives. So, euthanasia should be illegal as it makes certain disabled and elderly people feel pressurised.

Finally, perhaps it is important to consider suicide, which is not illegal. Suicide in many respects is similar to voluntary passive or active euthanasia, as the patient is asking for it or is performing it on themselves. Therefore, it seems strange for it to be illegal. People should have enough bodily autonomy to choose if they want to die.

In conclusion, even if people have bodily autonomy, it is important to consider the ‘bigger picture’. Perhaps voluntary passive euthanasia should not be illegal as the law cannot force a patient to accept treatment, but other forms should remain criminalised because of the Hippocratic Oath and the idea that medicine is advancing, there are many treatments available that may remove patients’ pain.

(743 words)
0
reply
username4812684
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by dyingstudent101)
I don't think anyone's gonna reply to this, J Papi (not gonna tag lmao) I believe said he won't do more after someone yesterday, but it's worth a shot. I'm worried as I'm applying to Oxford, Durham and UCL.


Should Euthanasia be Legalised in the UK?
Euthanasia is the killing of someone with a incurable or terminal disease, and is often seen as a ‘compassionate’ way to allow someone to end their suffering. However, as this essay will argue, there are several factors to consider which ultimately show that euthanasia should remain illegal, for example because of the ‘bigger picture’ - there have been cases where some members of the disabled community feel like a burden on their families and feel pressured to consider euthanasia. It is also important to discuss the distinction, if any, between euthanasia and suicide.

Firstly, one must recognise that all doctors, as stated in the Hippocratic Oath, have a duty to preserve and protect all forms of life where possible. Perhaps for the sake of this argument, it is important to discuss the difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient themself asks for euthanasia, and contrastingly, involuntary euthanasia occurs where the friends, family and doctors believe it is in their best interest to die now, when it is less painful for everyone. However, both forms are unreasonable arguably. Even if the patient asks for it, doctors and nurses have a responsibility to protect life. Some may argue it is murder for them to kill a patient, or allow them the patient to kill themselves. On the other hand, one may maintain that medical professionals also have a duty to do what is best for the patient, and if the patient believes euthanasia will be best, nursers and doctors should not stand in their way. However, this argument is illogical; it appears to be strange for them to simply allow them to kill themselves for two reasons: the first is that medicine is advancing, and many doctors have many more treatment options now than in the past. The second reason is that, as aforementioned, doctors have a duty to preserve every life. Overall, to summarise, medical professionals must protect all lives and must not allow a patient to kill themselves.

Similarly, it may also be useful to discuss the differences between passive and active euthanasia and determine if this weakens the previous argument. Passive euthanasia refers to methods like intentionally not eating or taking medications to kill oneself, and active euthanasia refers to methods like lethal injections and drugs to do it. The idea of passive euthanasia creates issues; even if doctors should not allow their patients to euthanise, some argue that they cannot force patients to eat or take medication, so it should not be illegal for patients to refuse treatment. Of course the concept of active euthanasia is much more straight-forward as evidently doctors should not be allowed to actively kill their patients by administering drugs or injections. Thus, even though active euthanasia should remain illegal, it is difficult to implement laws against passive euthanasia as it seems inhumane to force someone to accept treatment/food.

However, the main argument for the legalisation of euthanasia is in relation to ‘compassion’. Many maintain that it is more compassionate to allow someone with an incurable disease to choose when and how to die in peace. On the other hand, the counterarguments for this are also in relation to the idea of compassion - many elderly and disabled people may feel like a burden on their families, and a pressure to consider euthanasia. Moreover, many argue that if euthanasia is a ‘treatment’ or solution for patients, many medical professionals will become ‘lazy’ and offer euthanasia to patients or quickly accept patients’ desires for it without much hesitation. But this is incredibly unlikely, as many doctors and nurses obviously chose to go into the field to save lives. So, euthanasia should be illegal as it makes certain disabled and elderly people feel pressurised.

Finally, perhaps it is important to consider suicide, which is not illegal. Suicide in many respects is similar to voluntary passive or active euthanasia, as the patient is asking for it or is performing it on themselves. Therefore, it seems strange for it to be illegal. People should have enough bodily autonomy to choose if they want to die.

In conclusion, even if people have bodily autonomy, it is important to consider the ‘bigger picture’. Perhaps voluntary passive euthanasia should not be illegal as the law cannot force a patient to accept treatment, but other forms should remain criminalised because of the Hippocratic Oath and the idea that medicine is advancing, there are many treatments available that may remove patients’ pain.

(743 words)
The structure seems to be almost perfect, so does the way you evaluate the arguments you put for forward. If I can give any hint, I would say to make sure that all your sentences follow a coherent and lexically correct structure (which you have done almost all the times, I have just spotted a couple of little mistakes in the work orders). I would also suggest to write a bt more in your. conclusion, although I recognise that it can make the final product too lengthy.

Hope this helps.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
I'll be harsh, because you don't want the Butterflies and Rainbows version, do you?

You don't go into the nuance of the 'killing' enough, for me. What about intention, and how does that affect your view on it? There's too much discussion of practicalities and not enough about underlying principles. Also, there are FAR too many words. You could cull about 150 from this and keep the message unchanged. Far too many weasel words like 'however', 'similarly', 'moreover'.

Sentence structure is at times poor, and nearly always too long. There's a sentence in your second para with a semicolon (used wrongly), a colon and two commas. This isn't the way to write clearly, which is the central thing you need to be aiming for. Those sentences need splitting up into two or even three. Lose the clauses.

Your conclusion introduces a concept of bodily autonomy which you haven't even discussed or introduced in the preceding body of the essay. It also contains a basic, factual error of 'the law cannot force a patient to accept treatment'. What about the Mental Health Act...

Not good, I'm afraid. Lots more work to be done. Most importantly, you need to write with more clarity and brevity. Too many polysyllabic words where shorter ones would do the same duty.
1
reply
my_man_123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Reality Check)
I'll be harsh, because you don't want the Butterflies and Rainbows version, do you?

You don't go into the nuance of the 'killing' enough, for me. What about intention, and how does that affect your view on it? There's too much discussion of practicalities and not enough about underlying principles. Also, there are FAR too many words. You could cull about 150 from this and keep the message unchanged. Far too many weasel words like 'however', 'similarly', 'moreover'.

Sentence structure is at times poor, and nearly always too long. There's a sentence in your second para with a semicolon (used wrongly), a colon and two commas. This isn't the way to write clearly, which is the central thing you need to be aiming for. Those sentences need splitting up into two or even three. Lose the clauses.

Your conclusion introduces a concept of bodily autonomy which you haven't even discussed or introduced in the preceding body of the essay. It also contains a basic, factual error of 'the law cannot force a patient to accept treatment'. What about the Mental Health Act...

Not good, I'm afraid. Lots more work to be done. Most importantly, you need to write with more clarity and brevity. Too many polysyllabic words where shorter ones would do the same duty.
His LNAT is today and he is probably doing it at this very moment, thanks for trying to assist people with their LNAT essys though.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by my_man_123)
His LNAT is today and he is probably doing it at this very moment, thanks for trying to assist people with their LNAT essys though.
No point doing the whole 'oh yeah, it's lovely' thing though, is there? How would that help him? Maybe the feedback could have been more of a shît sandwich, but aspiring lawyers tend to be a thick-skinned bunch.
1
reply
Euphoria101
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Reality Check)
No point doing the whole 'oh yeah, it's lovely' thing though, is there? How would that help him? Maybe the feedback could have been more of a shît sandwich, but aspiring lawyers tend to be a thick-skinned bunch.
My exam was today lmao, the user wasn’t saying your feedback wasn’t helpful just perhaps a bit late

Thanks anyway!
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by dyingstudent101)
My exam was today lmao, the user wasn’t saying your feedback wasn’t helpful just perhaps a bit late

Thanks anyway!
Haha! Well, at least it's all over. Hope you've done well at it.

my_man_123 - sorry, I totally misunderstood your post. Thanks!
0
reply
Euphoria101
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Reality Check)
Haha! Well, at least it's all over. Hope you've done well at it.

my_man_123 - sorry, I totally misunderstood your post. Thanks!
Thank you!

I appreciate you taking the time to give feedback for this essay, it’s still useful nonetheless. I’ll go over it tonight cause I don’t want to think about it for a few hours
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by dyingstudent101)
Thank you!

I appreciate you taking the time to give feedback for this essay, it’s still useful nonetheless. I’ll go over it tonight cause I don’t want to think about it for a few hours
Oh absolutely. Have a good few hours away from it - I'd think about anything but that, to be honest with you. What was it like overall? What you were expecting?
0
reply
Euphoria101
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Reality Check)
Oh absolutely. Have a good few hours away from it - I'd think about anything but that, to be honest with you. What was it like overall? What you were expecting?
Eh wasn’t a fan lmao. I found the passages surprisingly more difficult, kind of on par with Arbitio or even slightly tougher.

The essay was okay, just didn’t have much to say but it could’ve been worse, or at least that’s what I’m telling myself to feel better.

A strange thing was that some of the passages had 5 multiple choice options, I’m not sure if other users found the same. I always thought it was supposed to be 3/4 per passage, but anyway

thanks for asking! I’m glad it’s over, but I wish I did a few more practice papers for the multiple choice.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (593)
34.1%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (720)
41.4%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (347)
19.95%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (79)
4.54%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed