The Consumption of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)
The consumption of genetically modified foods (GMOs) has always generated significant debated across the globe. With the rising population accompanied by reduced natural resources, it is claimed that the demand of food will triple in the next 10 years which would mean that more food surplus would be high. In regards to this, GMOs have been considered as the alternative option to provide enough food that efficient to feed the population since they are drought and disease resistant while also generating higher yield. On the other hand, GMOs are considered hazardous to both the ecosystem and human health. Because of their unique genes, they can easily affect the genetic makeup of other organisms thereby making them harmful to the environment. Some of the engineered organisms have also been associated with interference with the habitat as they replace the existing species; this has resulted in the endangering of vulnerable species. I believe that GMOs benefits by far outweigh the possible negative impacts in the society.
The Legalization of Euthanasia
The legalization of euthanasia remains a key controversial issue among the medical practitioners and the society at large. It is argued that drawing the line between when to take life and when to save it is very difficult. Opponents of the medical act argue that voluntary euthanasia is important particularly to the elderly or the critically ill patients who feel the need to die with dignity. This is associated with the fact that the patients or elderly may feel they are a burden to the society, and as such should consider euthanasia to reduce the costs and resource utilization in the palliative care. This is, however, not the case for life advocators who believe that every individual has the right to live. Euthanasia, as considered by opponents, may change from voluntary to an involuntary act, citing an example of Netherlands where over 1,000 people have been killed by 2001 as a result of involuntary euthanasia. It is further argued that the act of euthanasia may have emotional impact on the family who may not consent to the quick dying of their loved one. I believe that euthanasia should not be legalized as a result of its detrimental effects on the patients, the family, the doctor-patient relationship, and the society.
Persuasion in Addressing the Negative Impact of Euthanasia
Persuasion in addressing the negative impact of euthanasia is important to help in convincing the audience on the need to consider other alternatives of palliative care rather than the quick process. One of the reasons why people out to disregard euthanasia is the fact that there often results involuntary suicide in which the doctors may take the life of a patient without their approval. In addition, legalization of the act may result in elderly abuse both in the hospital and in domestic homes’ the resulting psychological and financial abuses are a reflection of involuntary euthanasia. Furthermore, no family would like to lose their loved ones; by legalizing euthanasia, it is evident that the medical field does not care about the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the family members. By opposing the medical act, millions of lives would be saved and more decent life as well as palliative care would be offered to the elderly and the sick population. As the topic targets the sick, doctors, and family members of patients and elderly, it is important to utilize logic, emotional appeal, and personal ethics to make the argument convincing.
