“Specific Page Title or Article Title” Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?” | "Non-religious Arguments Against Voluntary Euthanasia" |
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV | Nicholas Beale and Professor Stuart Horner |
Title of the Entire Website (not www. ) Ex: CBC News | Star Course |
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC | The Star Course Publishing Co. |
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010 | August 2009 |
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012 | 15 February 2012 |
<URL address> (ALL of it) |
FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV). |
The author claims that he has "a much higher IQ" and that he is "much better educated than most people" concluding that he knows everything about the subject (Horner). |
Horner states that "legalising the killing of humans" is immoral and "undermines the basis of law and public morality" (Horner). |
He claims that the legalization would cause "huge social pressures" causing "stress and suffering" on the "vulnerable people" to "volunteer" (Horner). |
He makes an interesting point when writing about the "devastating" effects on the families and other loved ones; "especially children" (Horner). |
He also makes a valid argument that physician assisted suicide would "undermine funding of research" in the area of terminal illness and depression due to the illness (Horner). |
Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):
Unlike the other sources, this site focuses on the negative effects of the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. The opinions are non-religious based and focus solely on harmful effect in the long run.The authors of the website hope to ban the act for good.
Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?
The authors are both medical doctors and former chairmen of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee.
Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?
The sites goal is to gain support and recognition of the dangers and long term effects of the subject.
Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?
Yes, there is a bias as they favor the cons of physician assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia.
References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?
No they do not cite refrences taking away from their credibility.
Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?
I plan to use this source when expressing the reasons why some people are against the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and stating my opinion on whether i agree or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment