Friday, March 19, 2010

paper a

Argument: the argument from my first paper was that palliative sedation is better for the family of a suffering patient because palliative sedation is better for the patient and anything that is better for the patient is better for the family.

Audience: The audience for my paper was the family members of people who are currently suffering from a terminal illness for which palliative sedation would be a viable treatment option. Such people would be opposed to selecting palliative sedation because of their strong value of life and the fear of feelings of guilt and of not having the same amount of time to communicate with their loved one.

How: The paper is first and foremost an emotional appeal to the audience. It relies heavily on the assumption that the audience cares very deeply about their suffering relative and wants what will be best for them. It uses real life anecdotes of how palliative sedation can bring peace to the suffering and how the experience can be positive for the family. Because it is a very personal and sensitive topic, it address the audience very softly, attempting to relate to them on an emotional level and have trustworthy, caring voice. Logically, there are a few numbers and facts to support the pathos, but they are not the strongest parts of the argument. A lot could be added to the paper by using stronger statistics and a little more logic.

Effectiveness: I believe that the paper does an effective job of presenting the argument in a way that would be resonate with the audience. While it could be helped with stronger facts to back it up, the anecdotes from real patients and how they were helped and how families dealt with the use of palliative sedation are enough the move the audience emotionally and see where the argument is coming from.

No comments: