Critical Thinking Analysis: Hastening Death

This week’s Critical Thinking analysis, I’m going to draw a conclusion and evaluation of the work that I have done for “Hastening Death.” In the first Critical Thinking analysis, I talked about whether or not the United States should legalize hastening death throughout the country. I also gave information on the different types of methods to hasten your death and the controversial issue of it. I would have to say that some of my strengths in the first analysis is depicting a strong point of both sides in the controversy. I provided a lot of pros and cons to the issue and backing it up with information to support both sides. For instance, giving examples of Oregon and Washington’s view on the topic since it has already been legalize and seeing

Some weaknesses of this analysis is not having enough background information on the pros of hastening death. There were more examples from ill patient’s decisions then the factual statements of the issues. Although, there is nothing wrong with giving personal experiences of agreeing to the position, it would have been more supportive to the “yes” side with more data from Oregon or Washington. In addition, some of my strengths were finding the right articles to back up the “yes” side of the issue. The articles that were found provided terminally ill patient’s point of view and their love one’s point of view. Also, there were a lot of information pertaining about an individual’s rights that definitely support a big part in the controversy. In addition, an assumption error of this analysis is that technology and medicine are prolonging an individual’s life. I think that I could have looked more into this and give some data that actually prove the statement, instead of going off of what an article

Some of the strengths in the third analysis is having enough information to back up my hypothesis and discussing one side of the issue that will support my statement. However, some weaknesses in the analysis was that there was no inclusion of different point of views to the position. Also, the limitations of the position was not acknowledged as well. If there were other point of view to my thesis/hypothesis then it would have shown a broader view of the issue. A critical thinking error in this analysis is including a conclusion at the end with a result because it was just a hypothesis that was not tested in reality yet. So, including that section with the made-up findings was an error that should have never been added to the