Assignment 2: Discussion—Comparison of Editorials
In this assignment, you will identify and explore your intuitive critical-thinking strategies. It is the starting point to developing the skills to analyze information critically. Research methods of identifying strong and weak arguments using your textbook and the Argosy University online library resources. Be sure to cover the following: Identify premises and conclusions Discuss whether or not an inference is warranted Determine whether arguments utilize inductive or deductive reasoning. For this assignment, your facilitator will assign you one of the following debates: Debate 1: Should the “Ashley X” treatments have been permitted? Debate 2: Is Osama Bin Laden’s death a decisive blow to Al Qaeda or an unmitigated victory against terrorism? Each debate has two sets of articles for review. Your facilitator will assign you one of these sets. Each set has two articles with two varying, but important, perspectives on the same subject. Be sure to read both articles in the set. Debate 1: These pairs of articles focus on the subject of “Ashley X,” a child with static encephalopathy who underwent radical surgical procedures to facilitate her care and, thereby, ostensibly improve her quality of life. Set A Lewis, J. (2007, January 6). The moral line in medicine shifts once again. The Independent, p. 37. (ProQuest Document ID). Singer, P. (2007, January 26). A convenient truth [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.21. (ProQuest Document ID). Only required to do Section 1.
Respond to the following: Identify and explain the strongest argument in each article. Or identify and explain the weakest argument in each article. Give reasons and examples from your research in support of your response. Your initial response should be about 300–400 words in length, with at least one reference cited in APA format.
Paper For Above instruction
The critical analysis of editorial articles involves evaluating the premises, conclusions, and reasoning structures used by the authors. This process helps in understanding the strength and validity of the arguments presented, particularly in ethically and socially significant debates such as those surrounding the case of Ashley X and the broader implications of medical ethics and violence. In this discussion, I will analyze the strongest arguments in both articles from Set A, focusing on their logical coherence, use of evidence, and ethical considerations.
The first article by Lewis (2007), titled "The moral line in medicine shifts once again," argues that medical decisions must be guided by evolving moral standards and that sometimes extraordinary measures are
justified to improve a patient’s quality of life. Lewis’ strongest argument rests on the premise that medicine is an evolving moral enterprise that requires ongoing reassessment of ethical boundaries. His conclusion that medical practices should adapt to these shifts suggests that radical procedures like those performed on Ashley X may be ethically permissible if they align with current moral standards. This argument is inductive, relying on the premise that moral standards are dynamic and that medicine is intertwined with morality, which justifies the procedures.
Conversely, Singer’s (2007) article, titled "A convenient truth," presents a compelling argument centered on the ambiguity and ethical discomfort surrounding the procedures performed on Ashley X. Singer’s strongest argument is based on the premise that medical interventions lacking clear benefits for the patient and involving significant ethical risks are morally questionable. His conclusion implies that such radical surgeries, which do not directly benefit the child and may cause harm, are ethically unjustifiable. The argument is deductive, drawing from the premise that actions causing unnecessary harm or violating ethical principles are unjustifiable, given the responsibilities of medical practitioners.
Both articles utilize premises that lead to conclusions grounded in ethical reasoning; however, Lewis’s argument employs inductive reasoning by drawing on the dynamic nature of medical morality, whereas Singer’s argument employs deductive reasoning based on ethical principles against harm. The strength of Lewis’s argument lies in its contextual flexibility, but it risks subjective moral shifts, while Singer’s approach emphasizes universal ethical principles which provide a more solid moral foundation. Critical evaluation scenarios suggest that the validity of each argument hinges on the acceptance of their underlying premises about moral standards and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare providers. Recognizing these structures enhances our capacity for critical thinking and better informs ethical debates in medical practice.
References
Lewis, J. (2007, January 6). The moral line in medicine shifts once again. *The Independent*, p. 37.
Singer, P. (2007, January 26). A convenient truth [Op-Ed]. *The New York Times*, p. A.21.