unsure what this part of a quote means

[hello_kitty]

"Some people oppose voluntary euthanasia arguing that it's playing God, but so is artificially prolonging life," he said.


im not sure what it means by the part bolded :/

Thanks

[LachieEvans]

keeping a person on lifesupport after braindeath, multi organ failure etc.

[hello_kitty]

what is the general message of the quote :/?

[24lover]

that it's 'bad' to keep someone alive when they're not supposed to be.

[hello_kitty]

when their not supposed to be or when they dont want to be alive?

[24lover]

Euthanasia comes into practice when the person who is ill cannot make the judgement of whether they should live or die, leaving the family or guardian or whoever to decide for them - this is where the debate begins (this is my knowledge of it anyways, you might want to double check). Should we have the ability to keep our loved one on life support with the slightest hope that they may recover from their illness? Or is it like playing god as in, we should not be the ones to decide whether or not someone should be kept alive just because it's what we want? Is it cruel to keep someone alive when their body or state of mind can no longer function by itself? etc. etc.

[jane1234]

Euthanasia comes into practice when the person who is ill cannot make the judgement of whether they should live or die, leaving the family or guardian or whoever to decide for them - this is where the debate begins (this is my knowledge of it anyways, you might want to double check). Should we have the ability to keep our loved one on life support with the slightest hope that they may recover from their illness? Or is it like playing god as in, we should not be the ones to decide whether or not someone should be kept alive just because it's what we want? Is it cruel to keep someone alive when their body or state of mind can no longer function by itself? etc. etc.

Euthanasia is specifically terminating life in order to relive suffering.
"Artificially prolonging life" means you keep someone alive through machines even if they are in pain and usually in this case there is only a small chance they will recover  - if any.
So either of these practices comes about when the patient cannot make the judgement themselves.

[ninwa]

what is the general message of the quote :/?

I believe he is pointing to the hypocrisy of those who criticise voluntary euthanasia as "playing God" because it is not natural, you're killing someone before they would have died naturally etc.

Someone who is sick enough to want to die by euthanasia usually would require significantly advanced medical care in order to sustain their life. This is what he means by "artificially prolonging life" - using machines and chemicals (artificial things) to force the body to survive when otherwise it might have died.

Both are essentially "playing God", so he's pointing out that it's not a valid argument, basically.

[hello_kitty]

i think i sort of get it..do you think then i could use this quote as evidence for topic sentence 1 or 2?

1) Individuals who are terminally ill are entitled to choose an option that eases their pain of suffering

2) By legalising euthanasia families are spared the agony of watching their loved ones endure a slow and painful death.

Thanks for all your help!

[ninwa]

Assuming your essay is pro-euthanasia, that quote would be good for your last paragraph, in which you acknowledge the opposing arguments but outline their weaknesses.

Remember that he is basically rebutting the opposition's argument by accusing them of being hypocrites. 1) and 2) are basically arguing the same things so I guess you could use that quote for either, but it's not really addressing the point.

[hello_kitty]

when you say last paragraph, do you mean my conclusion?
hmm if its not really addressing the point, maybe i shouldnt include it in either? :/

[ninwa]

No, I'm talking about the paragraph before your conclusion. What kind of essay are you supposed to be writing btw? I'm just assuming you're writing an argumentative piece, in which case it's good practice to have a paragraph at the end (before your conclusion) addressing the opposing viewpoints, and perhaps dissecting them and discussing why your arguments are better.

It kind of works for both, I suppose:

1) Individuals who are terminally ill are entitled to choose an option that eases their pain of suffering. Some say that artifically terminating a life is "playing God", but as blah blah says, <quote>.

BUT that's not really addressing the actual contention, which is about individual liberty.

2) By legalising euthanasia families are spared the agony of watching their loved ones endure a slow and painful death. Some say that artifically terminating a life is "playing God", but as blah blah says, <quote>.

BUT that's not really addressing the actual contention, which has to do with preventing suffering.

[hello_kitty]

I'm writing a point of view essay but i have to include language techniques such as rhetorical questions etc..
i want to try and include some metaphors or similies but am unable to think of any that would be relevant any suggestions?

do you recommend i use the quote at all??

also for the topic sentence "Euthanasia is a better alternative for individuals who are terminally ill opposed to individuals voluntarily using it to assist in suicide" - i was told to be careful of the wording as some terminally ill people are also seeking assisted suicide...im unsure on how i'm suppose to adjust this topic sentence so it makes more sense??

[ninwa]

Okay so an opinionative piece? In that case it's definitely a good idea to have a paragraph talking about opposing arguments. That quote would be perfect for that kind of paragraph. Otherwise, I wouldn't use it.

Although you could probably turn the quote into a rhetorical question - "but isn't artificially prolonging life also 'playing God'?" or something.

Can't really think of metaphors or similes atm. Perhaps you could use an analogy - compare the situation to putting down pets which are in pain/not going to live for long, and insert a rhetorical question as well, e.g. "why is animal suffering worth alleviating but not human?"

"Euthanasia is a better alternative for individuals who are terminally ill opposed to individuals voluntarily using it to assist in suicide".

- maybe try rewording it as individuals seeking assisted suicide for non-life-threatening or non-medical reasons. I'm guessing you're trying to say that it should be allowed only for sick people and not just for anybody who wants to off themselves.

[hello_kitty]

what exactly should i be including in this paragraph?
could i maybe use the rhetorical question as my rebuttal to a counter argument?
something like "person" opposing voluntary euthanasia is arguing that it's playing got, however, isn't artifically prolonging life also 'playing god'

ive used this in my essay, would this work as an anology?
"The terminally ill should have the right to die with dignity opposed to in sufferance, as it is inhumane otherwise. We should consider that you wouldn’t keep an animal in sufferance with no quality of life, so why should it be the same for humans? "

Yeah well my contention is " Euthanasia should be legalised for circumstances where the individuals are terminally ill"

so for this paragraph i want to say that it should be legalised but for peopole who are sick rather than those who would use it to assist in suicide..im not sure how to make that into a clear topic sentence any suggestions?
could it be "Euthanasia is a better alternative for individuals who are terminally ill oppose to those seeking assisted suicide for non-medial reasons(quote from you)"??

Thanks for your helP!