       Physician assisted suicide is an extremely controversial topic amongst the medical community. Assisted suicide calls for a doctor to prescribe a terminally ill patient a lethal dose of drugs so they can end their life, but, most of all, their pain and suffering.  Assisted suicide is currently legal in five states and six countries, and it is fighting to become legal across the globe. In "There is a Right to Die," Peter Singer uses logos to make a strong argument for the legalization of euthanasia, providing facts and statistics to support his claim. Through his use of logos, Singer 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 pathetic appeals.

       Singer uses logos to support his claim that an individual should have the right to decide the means of his or her own death. Singer discusses a survey that an expert panel from the Royal Society of Canada conducted. He provides results that show that euthanasia in the Netherlands has not become any more responsible for deaths than it was 15 years ago in order to counter those who believe legalization will result in a slippery slope (Singer). Singer then explains that in Oregon and Washington, the physician-assisted death toll hasn't even reached 100 per year (Singer). This shows that after legalization, there has hardly been a change in the use of euthanasia. The data Singer uses shows that doctors have yet to go on a euthanizing killing spree or prescribe it to anyone who asks. Singer intended to show that the slippery slope argument, the most common argument against physician assisted suicide, is invalid. Another common argument against PAS stems from religious beliefs. Catholicism says that we do not have the authority to take life into our own hands because it is God's decision when it is time for one's life to come to an end. However, the polls in strong Catholic areas now show that more people support the legalization of euthanasia than oppose it (Singer). Even devout catholics are supporting the change in laws, proving that, despite their religious beliefs, catholics realize everyone should have the right to die. I think this statistic helps the reader see that one of the bigger arguments against assisted suicide is flawed. Singer supplies the reader with these statistics because they rebut each of the major oppositions to physician assisted suicide.

       An invented ethos is created for the reader after it is made known that Singer 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 because each university and profession mentioned is well known and respected. 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 make a pathetic 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 is 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.

       By using ethos, pathos, and logos, the author was able to make an effective argument for the right to die. 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. The story of Clendinen is there for the reader to realize the horror of a terminal illness and what will have to be endured by him moving forward. It would be unfair to blame him for wanting to take his life when the disease became too much to handle. It's easy to be against something when it doesn't affect you directly, but when the reader is forced to imagine a scenario in which they are suffering, opinions seem to change. When in the situation, I imagine that I would want to handle it in the same exact way. The reader is forced to think about their families and how they have to deal with the knowledge of their loved one wanting to die and not being allowed to. After this brief story, the author cuts right to the facts. Admittedly, the story stirred emotion and the pathos worked, but there wasn't enough. Soon after, the reader is absorbed by all the information being thrown out that the emotion felt is almost immediately 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.

