Source Analysis on: “Advance Euthanasia Directives”

Paper Info
Page count 2
Word count 654
Read time 3 min
Topic Health
Type Essay
Language 🇺🇸 US

Source Identification

The article “Advance euthanasia directives: A controversial case and its ethical implications” written by David Gibbes Miller, Rebecca Dresser, and Scott Y. H Kim was produced in 2019. It was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics under the sponsorship of the same journal. The study by the three authors was funded by Intramural Research Program (IRP). IRP is a program of the NIH Clinical Center in which Dresser was a visitor to the Department of Bioethics during the article writing. I found the source to be reliable as it is not biased, is evidential, has accurate information, and was recently published.

Source Evaluation

The source is authentic and reliable because it is written based on court case news and television reports. The researchers are not biased and their writing takes an academic style. For example, the source uses direct quotes of what a Dutch woman said when requesting euthanasia. According to Azzini et al. (2018), a good researcher is not biased but reports accurate information. The Journal of Medical Ethics as its sponsor is a reputable journal specializing in medical ethics issues since 1975. The journal is owned by the Institute of Medical Ethics whose dedication is to improving the education of medical ethics (“About,” 2021). These are among the many reasons for the source’s credibility.

The aim of the researchers is to provide details of the controversial case, review primary ethical issues raised by the case, and discuss the potential weaknesses in the practice of AED. The writers reached the goals of the study thereby offering the case details as they are in various online sources. For example, the researchers mentioned that the AED contained ambiguity just as the court case concluded. Furthermore, they availed detailed conclusions made by the law that the AED guidelines were wrong at the end of the case.

The authors also analyzed the case concerning the regulated AED guidelines, thus, determining ethical issues. Another example is that the writers found limitations in AED which might have contributed to the case of the Dutch woman. The article is useful to me because it provides more information about the weaknesses and strengths of euthanasia practices. It also gives more knowledge so I could make a stand about whether euthanasia should be legalized in all US states or not. For example, the writers mention that with proper AED guidelines, euthanasia practice is good.

The strengths of the AED practices, as analyzed by the writers, will help me prove that euthanasia practice should be legalized. I will have better points in making general arguments to back up the literature review points. While making my supporting points, I will provide details about what should be avoided during the legalization to avoid controversial cases. The strengths of the Netherlands AED function as a support for the legalization of euthanasia in all states of the US. However, the ethical issues of the case and weaknesses in the AED could act as counter-arguments against the practice.

Conclusion

The study article by Miller et al. (2019) is credible and useful. The writers are educated in the bioethical issue department and are sponsored by a reliable journal. The study arguments are useful to me in support of my general stance on euthanasia practice. The study also provides the points that could be used against my stand, which is in support of the practice.

Reflection

  • What types of questions did you ask yourself when evaluating the credibility and usefulness of your source?
  • One question was about the source credibility, how accurate is the information in the article? Another question was how qualified are the authors to make the ethical analysis?
  • How do you feel this evaluation practice will help you as you continue to move through the research process?

The evaluation will help me know how to rely on the most reliable sources. I will also know the accuracy of the information in the chosen references.

References

About. (2021). Journal of Medical Ethics. Web.

Azzini, A., Galimberti, A., Marrara, S., & Ratti, E. (2018). SOON: supporting the evaluation of researchers’ profiles. In International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations (pp. 3-14). Springer, Cham.Web.

Miller, D. G., Dresser, R., & Kim, S. Y. (2019). Advance euthanasia directives: A controversial case and its ethical implications. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(2), 84-89. Web.

Cite this paper

Reference

NerdyBro. (2022, August 17). Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives". Retrieved from https://nerdybro.com/source-analysis-on-advance-euthanasia-directives/

Reference

NerdyBro. (2022, August 17). Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives". https://nerdybro.com/source-analysis-on-advance-euthanasia-directives/

Work Cited

"Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives"." NerdyBro, 17 Aug. 2022, nerdybro.com/source-analysis-on-advance-euthanasia-directives/.

References

NerdyBro. (2022) 'Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives"'. 17 August.

References

NerdyBro. 2022. "Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives"." August 17, 2022. https://nerdybro.com/source-analysis-on-advance-euthanasia-directives/.

1. NerdyBro. "Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives"." August 17, 2022. https://nerdybro.com/source-analysis-on-advance-euthanasia-directives/.


Bibliography


NerdyBro. "Source Analysis on: "Advance Euthanasia Directives"." August 17, 2022. https://nerdybro.com/source-analysis-on-advance-euthanasia-directives/.