Cora Agatucci's Toulmin-Style Analysis of May's Argument
WR 122 - Winter 2010Resources: AofA Ch. 3, especially “Concept Close-Up: Model Toulmin Diagram for Analyzing Arguments” and “Best Practices: Toulmin Analysis” (Crusius and Channell 53, 54).
*1. IDENTIFY ARGUMENT ANALYZED - new 2009 MLA-Style Works Cited:
May, William F. “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death.” Christian Century 11 July 1990: n.p. Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. 46-47. Print.
2. ANALYZE THE (CASE) CLAIM (thesis/position on the issue argued), including Qualifications and Exceptions and Key Definitions & Distinctions.
See also AofA Ch. 3: “Analyzing the Claim” (pp. 48-50) and "Summarize the Claim," where Crusius and Channell offer their summary of May's claim (p. 50)Identify the Case Claim: “On the whole, our social policy should allow terminal patients to die, but it should not regularize killing for mercy” (May 47; par. 6) except “when the patient is utterly beyond human care, terminal, and in excruciating pain” (May 47; par. 8).
Cora’s Note: May poses key question to be answered in his argument: “…Should we develop a judicious, regulated social policy permitting voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill?” (46: par. 3). But a question is not a thesis statement! May’s Thesis/Case Claim is his answer to this key question.
Identify Qualifications and Exceptions: “On the whole,” a social policy permitting mercy killing (AKA: “active euthanasia”) should be allowed ONLY IF . . .
--(a) it is “judicious, regulated” (May 46; par. 3) like that of the Netherlands [Comparison]: i.e. “death is imminent,” “professional review of the medical evidence and the patient’s resolution” is conducted, and “final, endorsing signatures of two doctors” are required (May 46; par. 2)
Contrast to May’s opening example of the unregulated practice of Kevorkian, a “pathologist” who puts people “to sleep” as veterinarians put animals “to sleep” (46; par. 1-2), though May also immediately concedes that ". . . Kevorkian-bashing is easy" (46; par. 2)
AND . . .
--(b) it applies only to “patients” who are “utterly beyond human care, terminal, and in excruciating pain” (May 47; par. 8) at “that moment in illness when it no longer makes sense to bend every effort to cure or to prolong life and when one must allow patients to do their own dying” (May 47; par. 6). "I can, to be sure, imagine rare circumstances in which I hope I would have the courage to kill for mercy . . ." and cites one such "rare" "battlefield" example (May 47; par. 8; emphasis added).
Identify Key Definitions & Distinctions:
--“passive euthanasia” vs. “active euthanasia” (May 46; par 1)
--“allowing to die” vs. “killing for mercy” or “mercy killing” (May 46; par. 3, 4)
--“the right to die” vs. “the right to be killed” (May 46; par. 3)
--“voluntary euthanasia” (May 47; par. 7)3. IDENTIFY REASONS (offered to support author’s Case Claim) and EVIDENCE (offered to support Reasons)
See also AofA Ch. 3 "Analyzing the Reasons" (pp. 50-51) & "Analyzing the Evidence" (pp. 51-52)Given the Qualifications and Exceptions above, social policy should not permit “sudden death” termination of a person’s life, which “fail[s] to appreciate our human capacity to rise to the occasion of our death” (May 46; par. 5 - & note the Title Allusion) BECAUSE . . .
Reason #1: Benefit to dying patient: “Those forewarned of death and given time to prepare for it have time to engage in acts of reconciliation” (May 46; par. 5); see also Crusius and Channell's paraphrase of reason #1 (Crusius and Channell 50).
*See Crusius & Channell's Evaluation of May's Reason #1: "Examine the Reasons" (Crusius and Channell 51).
--Is the reason good? May's appeal to commonly held Values = GOOD per Crusius and Channell (51).
--Is the reason relevant to the thesis claim? May's assumption that active euthanasia gives the patient and others no time to prepare for death = NOT necessarily the case and so NOT GOOD, per Crusius and Channell (51).Evidence: ________________________?
Reason #2: Benefit to dying patient’s loved ones: “Also, advanced grieving by those about to be bereaved may ease some of their pain” (May 46; par. 5); see also Crusius and Channell's paraphrase of reason #2 (Crusius and Channell 50).
Evidence: (Expert Opinion/Appeal to Authorities) “Psychiatrists” observe that the bereaved have a harder time recovering from sudden loss (e.g. an accident) of a loved one than from a loss preceded by “an extended period of illness before death” - "what Geoffrey Gorer has called limitless grief" (May 46; par. 5).
*See Crusius & Channell's Evaluation of May's Evidence for Reason #2: "Examine the Evidence" (Crusius and Channell 52).
--Is the evidence good--i.e. is it sufficient, accurate, and credible? Yes, say Crusius and Channell: see p. 52.
--Is the evidence relevant to the reason it supports? Yes, again, say Crusius and Channell: see p. 52.Reasons #3 & #4: Benefits to the community:
Reason #3: “The community, moreover, may need its aged and dependent, its sick and its dying, and the virtues which they sometimes evince—the virtues of humility, courage, and patience . . . ” (May 46-47; par. 5; emphasis added); see also Crusius and Channell's paraphrase of reason #3 (Crusius and Channell 50)
Evidence: _______________________?
Reason #4: “. . . the community needs the virtues of justice and love manifest in the agents of care” (May 46-47; par. 5); what May means by “agents of care” is, according to Crusius and Channell's paraphrase, “those who care for the sick and dying” (Crusius and Channell 49).
Evidence:_______________________?
4. IDENTIFY REFUTATIONS (objections of his opposition explicitly anticipated & addressed by May)
Objection: “Some moralists argue that the distinction between allowing to die and killing for mercy is petty quibbling over technique. Since the [terminally ill] patient in any event dies—whether by acts of omission or commission—the route to death doesn’t really matter” (May 46; par. 3).
May's Concession: “The impulse behind the euthanasia movement is understandable in an age when dying has become such an inhumanly endless business” (46: par. 5; emphasis added), when modern medical procedures (experts and machines) have made dying “a prolonged and painful business” (May 46; par. 3). On this basis, active euthanasia advocates “asser[t] not simply the right to die but the right to be killed” (May 46; par. 3).
May's Rebuttal: BUT, May contends, advocates of active euthanasia fail to make “an important moral distinction between allowing to die [passive euthanasia] and mercy killing [active euthanasia]”: these advocates “wan[t] to engineer death rather than face dying,” “would bypass dying [“the interval between life and death”] to make one dead as quickly as possible” and thereby “solv[e] the problem of suffering by eliminating the sufferer” (May 46; par. 4).
Objection: “Advocates of active euthanasia appeal to the principle of patient autonomy—as the use of the phrase ‘voluntary euthanasia’ indicates”: i.e. “the patient’s right to determine his or her destiny” (May 47; par. 7; emphasis added).
May's Rebuttal: May counters that only those with “an extremely naïve view” argue “voluntary euthanasia” is a free “uncoerced decision” for “elderly” and dying whose alternatives are “so wretched as to push patients toward this escape” (47; par. 7).
*See also Crusius and Channell's analysis & evaluation under "Noting Refutations" (Crusius and Channell 52).Objection: It is compassionate to allow our elderly and slowly dying to choose active euthanasia over living out their lonely, fearful, compassion-starved existences.
May's Rebuttal: It is “ironic” and “hypocritical” for our society to condone such a choice as “compassionate killing”: “[a] country has not earned the moral right to kill for mercy unless it has already sustained and supported life mercifully. Otherwise we kill for compassion only to reduce the demands on our compassion” (May 47; par. 7). “Regularized mercy killings would too quickly relieve the community of its obligation to provide good care” (May 47; par. 9).
May's Qualification: “This statement does not charge a given doctor or family member with impure motives. I am concerned here not with the individual case but with the cumulative impact of a society policy” (May 47; par 7).
See also "Summarizing Your Analysis" (Crusius and Channell 52-53).
Winter 2010 WR 122 Syllabus | Course Plan | WR 122 Home Page
You are here:
Example
(Modified)
Toulmin
Analysis
- WR
122, Winter 2010
URL of
this
webpage:
http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/wr122/ToulminAnalysis.htm
Last Updated:
06 January 2010
Copyright © 1997 -
2010, Cora Agatucci, Professor of English
Humanities Department, Central Oregon
Community College
Please address comments on web contents & links to:
If you have technical website errors or problems, please contact: