Critical Analysis Essay

Nicholas Mackay, N01042976

Falconers Go Gently Analysis

In Go Gently, published in this.org (Nov/Dec 2009), Tim Falconer discusses his views on
euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. He intends to convince those who oppose euthanasia and
assisted suicide and patients, lawmakers and healthcare professionals to instead support it. The
articles author claims that the government should not interfere with the legality of euthanasia
and physician assisted suicide while also encouraging the audience to press the state to change
the current illegality. Broadly, one should support legal euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide
though the article fails to adequately support this position.
Falconer begins by claiming that our ethical positions have not kept pace with our
medical advances but that this ought to change. His favourable position on doctor assisted
suicide and euthanasia are most strongly supported by a number of points. He mainly relies upon
logical appeals and cites a number of figures and highly specific examples. Falconer discusses
that a study executed by the Quebec College of Physicians examined the issue over the course of
three years and found that when both the physician and patient consent to assisted suicide that it
ought to be permitted. He proposes euthanasia solely in cases in which the feeding tube would
typically be removed and the person would starve to death. The article also claims that multiple
polls have found that seventy percent of the Canadian public support doctor assisted suicide for
terminally ill patients. He then proceeds to address the claim of the social conservatives that
euthanasia and assisted suicide is an unnatural means of deciding who dies at a particular time
and that this ought to be in Gods hands. He explains that medicine is inherently unnatural and
that in most respects these unnatural practices are embraced, and therefore euthanasia and doctor

Critical Analysis Essay

Nicholas Mackay, N01042976

assisted suicide should be embraced as well. The article examines how frequently the option of
doctor assisted suicide would be exercised by looking at Oregons experience with legal doctor
assisted suicide. In Oregon from 1997 to 2008 only 401 chose physician assisted suicide,
illustrating that this option is rarely chosen. The article states that several U.S. states and a
number of European countries have embraced euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. Falconer
also uses argument based on emotion. He mentions that the patients family also suffer for an
extended period when dying is needlessly elongated. He also points out that the family is
tragically distracted by their effort to prolong the life of a terminal patient. They focus on
medical concerns rather than saying goodbye and coming to peace with the reality that their
loved one is going to suffer and die.
The author has a number of problems with his arguments. The weakest aspect of the
article is that the author proposes euthanasia as an alternative to a doctor choosing to have a
patient starve to death as the result of removing the brain-dead patients feeding tube. This is an
almost irrelevant change because a doctor choosing to remove the feeding tube is essentially
already a form of euthanasia. Its also the scenario that focuses least on reducing human suffering
and that reason is the best justification for any form of euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is a
poor argument that assisted suicide is a rare choice in Oregon and therefore it should be
supported. If one believes that assisted suicide is wrong then the magnitude of the moral error
does not suggest that one should support it; merely that it should be opposed somewhat less.
Falconer points out that European countries and American states have legalized euthanasia and
assisted suicide but this is a false point. It doesnt matter whether or not a number of regions
have legalized it. An argument ought to stand up based on its own merits and not whether or not
other areas have determined it is the right choice for them.
2

Critical Analysis Essay

Nicholas Mackay, N01042976

Some of his points remain valid and strong. The study by the Quebec physicians is surely
valid because the authors opinion is based on experience and expertise. The poll showing that a
large majority of the Canadian public support doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia is a good
point to make in a democratic society like Canada. Falconer is right that concerns regarding
playing god are invalid and that unnatural medical procedures and decisions are an excellent
feature of modern society. Lastly, he is correct to point out that a drawn out death is emotionally
draining on both the dying person and his or her family.
He also makes a series of needless and distracting statements in Go Gently. He explores
the etymology of the word euthanasia and reports that it means good death in Greek; this
simply doesnt matter. He needlessly brings up that Quebec wants to leave Canada. Further, he is
offputtingly hostile to his opponents and labels them as mutants, and accuses them of conning
the public; this suggests he is not a calm and reasonable person that should be listened to. He
states that 230,000 Canadians die each year and fails to explain why this is relevant. The author
states that the disabled community is intensely concerned about their lives being devalued and
casually dismisses this concern. The article leaves one wondering why the disabled have these
concerns and why can they be dismissed.
While Falconers article Go Gently is reasonably compelling, it has numerous flaws. He
distracts the reader with irrelevant information while failing to expand upon his opponents
views. He is far too casual in the way that he dismisses his opponents views. The article contains
several weak arguments. He attempts to appeal to the reader through logical and emotional
arguments and through the use of specific broad cases. Falconers position is one that must be
agreed with despite the weak presentation.