Without knowing it, a reader encounters the three rhetorical appeals in every text. The uses are subtle, allowing the reader to believe they are forming their own opinion. In "There is a Right to Die", Peter Singer uses logos as his main appeal. He provides facts and statistics to support his claim on the use of euthanasia. Through his use of logos, the author explains that euthanasia should be legalized because one should have the right to die in the matter of his own choosing. While I agree that physician assisted suicide should be legal, I think the author's argument could have been made stronger had he taken more advantage of the pathos appeal.  

Singer uses logos to support his main claim that an individual should have the right to decide the means of their own death. The article discusses a survey that an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada conducted. The article is split up into different sections in order to organize the statistics that argue against the same criticism. Results from the survey showed that euthanasia in the Netherlands has not become any more responsible for deaths than it was 15 years ago, staying at a lowly 1.7%. (Singer). But, the percentage of assisted deaths in Belgium rose 0.8% (Singer). In both countries, however, the frequency of ending a patient's life without an explicit request was nearly cut in half (Singer). Even more so, the physician-assisted death toll hasn't even reached 100 per year in Oregon or Washington (Singer). After legalization, there has hardly been a change in the use of euthanasia. The data shows that doctors have yet to go on a euthanizing killing spree or prescribe it to anyone who asks. Therefore, the slippery slope argument, the most common argument against physician assisted suicide, is invalid. Another common argument stems from religious reasons. Despite that, polls in strong Catholic areas now show that more people support the legalization of euthanasia than oppose it (Singer). This throws out the religious debate because devout catholics are supporting the change in laws. By giving the reader these specific facts, the author is able to rebut every opposition to physician assisted suicide because the data contradicts everyone's worries.

While logos is the main appeal used, it is not the only one. An invented ethos is created for the reader after it is let known that the writer is a bioethics professor at Princeton University as well as a professor at the University of Melbourne. Singer also explains that the panel conducting the survey is chaired by another bioethics professor at Queens. This establishes the author's credibility along with the panel's. The logos is then ready to come into play because now that the author and organization have been deemed trustworthy, the data from the survey can be considered reliable. Next, the author begins to bring out the pathos appeal by giving us brief background information on Dudley Clendinen, a journalist with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, otherwise known as ALS. Immediately, thoughts of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and the effects the disease has on the body come to mind, which is exactly what the author was banking on. This makes the reader feel pity towards Clendinen almost instantly. A friend told Clendinen that he needed to buy a gun. In the United States, you can buy a gun and put a bullet through your brain without breaking any laws (Singer). This makes you question what kind of world we live in where dying peacefully is now in the same boat with shooting yourself. This statement even comes along with a vivid image of leaving a loved one to clean up the mess. After imagining this horrible scenario, the facts and statistics are welcomed with open arms because the reader is already on the side of making euthanasia legal. At the end of the article, the author goes on to tie the two appeals together by stating an opposition to the legalization should not deny Dudley Clendinen the right to die.

I think that the author did a very good job of using all three appeals together to create an effective argument. The overload of facts and statistics make the numbers impossible to ignore. The logos approach was very convincing and got the point across, but I think using more pathos would have created a stronger reaction from readers. I personally have a connection with the different types of Muscular Dystrophy through my volunteer work with the association. As soon as I read that Clendinen was suffering from ALS, my heart sank thinking about what he would have to endure in his future. It would be unfair to blame him for wanting to take his life when the disease became too much to handle. I put myself in the situation and imagined that I would want to handle it in the exact same way. My imagination kept going and I thought about how my family would not only have to take care of me, but live with the knowledge that I want to die and plan on doing so once the illness progresses far enough. Once the author brought up the idea of leaving someone to clean up the mess, I shuddered in horror. As if my condition wasn't hard enough on my family, they would be left to do the unimaginable- find and take care of my body. After this brief story, the author cuts right to the facts. Admittedly, I am in a morbid mood and the pathos worked, but there wasn't enough. I was soon absorbed by all the information being thrown at me that the emotion I had felt was gone. The author could have described other situations alongside the data and kept the reader's pity.

In conclusion, Peter Singer did an excellent job of informing the audience of how little has and could go wrong if euthanasia were to be legalized. The data he provides is a rebuttal to the huge oppositions to assisted suicide which leaves the reader better educated on the topic. However, had there been more story-telling, readers would have been left thinking about what families are forced to go through due to euthanasia not being legal. This creates a stronger reaction and possibly even a call to action. The author should have relied more heavily on pathos instead of logos in order to get a stronger reaction.

