Hi Jarron,

Great work, I like how you introduced your main claim of your topic, very interesting. Just a small suggestion, after reading your intro I would have thought you were going to talk about voluntary and involuntary euthanasia and how the nation is divided in this decision – statistics and what not. However, after reading your plan I see you are going to write about animals being put down, my life my choice and health industries are prolonging life of those in pain. I would suggest introducing these points into your introduction so that the reader can get a clear view of your argument.

Hope this helps


Hi, thanks for your comment.

Yes, I agree. I think I got a bit carried away with trying to hook the reader into the debate and forgot about my actual argument haha. I will try and introduce some of my main points in the introduction.



      1. Hi Jarron, you definitely capture the reader’s attention which is great. I see that this blog is linked to your fanfiction.
        “Week 5 – weekly updates: Add a new blog on your WordPress site (a new individual blog – unrelated to the Brief 1 group blog).”
        I would suggest making a separate blog for brief 2 or at least check this with the tutor to be safe.

        Liked by you


Hi Jarron,
Euthanasia is a really interesting topic to argue for, it seems to becoming a more and more popular topic for debate. I like the point you made in your third premise about the health care industry prolonging peoples life for the sake of it, with no real benefit. Seems to be pointless to use medicine to keep people alive if it doesn’t improve their health status. look forward to reading the rest of your blog.


Hi Samrau

Yes, a very interesting topic indeed. A topic that is quite often difficult to discuss as well as most people seem to have a strong stance either way and so they are typically just trying to convince you that they are right. I prefer discussions myself but that wouldn’t help me in the case of this blog haha.😛



Hi, firstly nice work.

My only comment is that I don’t know what you are arguing until the last two sentences of the introduction? Typically, you know or at least have a good idea about the main argument after the first line or at least the first three lines of the introduction. Maybe you could make your main argument more obvious earlier on in the introduction? That is all that I would say. Nice work otherwise.🙂


My first thought was that you were arguing against the marriage of minors in certain countries. That’s why I was a bit confused haha.


Hi JWhite,
Thanks for commenting! I reread my intro and agree with you. I’m planning to move the last sentence to the beginning. I hope that will make my argument topic clearer, let me know what you think.


That will do the trick I think.🙂


Hi Marcella

Just thinking that your first statement might not be relevant to your argument? You are arguing that the immigration quota should be lowered so aren’t the reasons why they want to come, irrelevant?

Another thought, for the first time in years, more Kiwis and Aussies are moving here from Australia than the other way round. Would you like the government to give these immigrants priority over immigrants from other places and if so, why?


One of the points I’m arguing for foreign immigrants is that when they move here, there is a language barrier, therefore communication becomes an issue in society since they do not need to know English in order to move to NZ. With Kiwi’s and Aussie’s immigrating from Australia, there wouldn’t be a language barrier, they’re already aware of the culture and customs of NZ so it wouldn’t really effect anything except numbers. I’d say in that case their immigrating would beneficial but then there are issues with the housing market and prices. NZ citizens should have first right to houses, jobs etc over ANY immigrants.

But thank you. I’ll take into consideration what you’ve said.

Liked by you


JWhite · 25 Days Ago

I’m arguing the same/similar argument to yours in my filter blog. You can check it out if you like and give me feedback and I can do the same once you start posting.




Voluntary Euthanasia Should be Legalised – Final


American pathologist, painter, author and composer Jack Kervokian once said, “Dying is not a crime.” It is a simple statement. Yet, this short quote presents an argument that divides opinion, stimulates debate and creates heated emotional responses – the world over.


In New Zealand over 21,000 submissions were submitted in response to a petition to hold a parliamentary inquiry into euthanasia. According to the Oxford Dictionary euthanasia is, “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” It is important to separate euthanasia into its two forms: voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when a patient chooses to end their life in order to avoid or stop their pain and suffering. Whereas, involuntary euthanasia is when a patient isn’t mentally or physically capable of making the choice and so instead, medical experts and close family make the decision on their behalf. A New Zealand Reid Research Poll conducted in 2015 found that 70% supported legalising voluntary euthanasia.

In it is time that voluntary euthanasia was legalised in New Zealand.


The healthcare industry is designed to prolong life but sometimes prolonging life is not the best outcome for the patient.

In recent times, Lecretia Seales a former Wellington-based lawyer fought tirelessly to avoid a painful death, but shortly after finding out that she had lost the legal battle, Seales succumbed to her brain cancer illness. A bitter justice for someone who only wanted to die on her terms. But it didn’t end there, Matt Vickers, Lecretia Seales’ husband has continued to press for the legalisation of consensual, physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Vickers wants, “to ensure that Lecretia’s personal sacrifice wasn’t for nothing.” This shows Seales’ and Vicker’s determination at not wanting future generations to share in the same extended painful experience as Lecretia Seales went through.

Vickers and Seales aren’t the only New Zealanders to push for this freedom in recent years. John Pollock, a former Auckland doctor diagnosed with a terminal illness believed it was time to legalise euthanasia back in 2010. He was quoted as saying, “The law as it stands in my view is cruel. It’s outdated, it’s cruel, it’s unnecessary – it needs to be changed. I don’t think that it is fair or it is moral for somebody else to suggest that they know better and that they have the right to determine that you may not be helped to die.” These are just two examples of a long history of New Zealanders who have pleaded for the right to end their pain and suffering, legally. Dr Mark Ottley a pain specialist from Christchurch agrees that euthanasia should be an option in extreme cases of suffering – stating that the best medications, psychological help and palliative care  did not always work for patients. This illustrates how prolonging life is not always the answer.

Society’s most vulnerable will not become victims of unethical euthanasia.

One of the most common arguments against legalising euthanasia, claims that legalising euthanasia will create a ‘slippery slope’ effect where voluntary euthanasia today will lead to involuntary euthanasia tomorrow. The idea that voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to the forced euthanasia of patients who are deemed to be longer valuable to society. This is despite little evidence proving this hypothesis. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed in 1997 in order to allow physician-assisted voluntary euthanasia in the State of Oregon. Contained within this bill are a number of safeguards against abuse, such as requiring a non-blood relative or non-professional witness, the patient is made fully aware of their condition and all alternative options, the patient is referred to an alternative physician to be assessed in order determine if the patient can make an informed decision etc. Meet a patient who benefited from the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon – explaining her reasoning for choosing voluntary euthanasia over the alternatives.

Another argument against legalising euthanasia is the claim that society’s most vulnerable will be taken advantage of and euthanised against their will. However, a case study carried out in The Netherlands where voluntary euthanasia has been legalised – shows no evidence of society’s vulnerable being taken advantage of. The study found no evidence of increased euthanasia amongst society’s vulnerable such as, “the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations.” In addition, the percentage of deaths as a result of euthanasia has never risen above 3%. This addresses another concern that legalising euthanasia will escalate the number of deaths over time.

In conclusion, it is clear that voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in New Zealand. With a 70% majority in a 2015 Reid Poll; it proves that there is a large contingent of supporters for a law change in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand’s history of euthanasia law reform activists such as Seales and Pollock who have illustrated how prolonging life is not always the best answer for the patient. Then consider that legalised euthanasia has not created the “slippery slope” effect in places such as The Netherlands and society’s disadvantaged have not been targeted by unethical euthanasia. Lastly, the legalisation of euthanasia has not led to a dramatic number of deaths as a result of euthanasia. But perhaps, above all – whether euthanasia is morally right or morally suspect to some – it should be up to the patient to be able to decide what is best for them. As the saying goes, “My life, my death, my choice.”


Reference List:

Mathieson, S.E. (2013). Live and Let Die: The Legalisation of Euthanasia in New Zealand. (Doctoral Thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand). Retrieved from

Rietjens, J.A.C., van der Maas, P.J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.D. et al. (2009). Two decades of research on Euthanasia from The Netherlands. What have we Learnt and what Questions Remain? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 6: 271. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3

Onwuteaka-Philepsen, B.D., Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, A., Penning. C., et al., (2012). Trends in End-of-Life Practices Before and After the Enactment of the Euthanasia Law in the Netherlands from 1990–2010: a Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey,” The Lancet. 380, no.9845: 908–15.

Binning, E. (July 21, 2010). Dying GP’s Last Wish: Legalise Euthanasia. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved (September 19, 2016) from

Broughton, C. (May 17, 2016). Euthanasia may be Answer to Incurable Pain, says Pain Expert. Stuff Health. Retrieved (September 17, 2016) from

How to Die in Oregon. (October 30, 2014). How to Die in Oregon – Taking Control. . Retrieved from

















Argument Links and Plan

Topic: Voluntary euthanasia should be legalised.


1) Heated debate; over 21,000 submissions from across New Zealand joining in the political debate–mps-to-hold-roadshow

2) Pain psychologist suggests that euthanasia should be a choice for patients who are mentally capable of making the choice eg. extreme cases, huntingtons disease etc.

3) Dutch case-study, no evidence of “slippery slope for medical end-of-life practices”, no evidence of a higher frequency of euthanasia among the vulnerable ie. poor, disabled, ethnic minorities etc.

4) Article found cross-cultural differences in acceptance towards euthanasia, less religious nations and more developed countries were more open to euthanasia being legal

5) Comprehensive report about why euthanasia should be legalised in NZ

6) NZ 3 News/Reid Research poll in 2015 found that 70% supported legalising voluntary euthanasia

7) Lecretia Seales fighting for the right to die with the assistance of her GP. In addition, a list of attempts in parliament of passing legislation.

8) NZ GP John Pollock’s dying wish, legalise euthanasia

9) Oregon death with dignity Act experience video

10) Weighing up the implications of voluntary euthanasia


Topic Voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in New Zealand.


Main Claim: “Dying is not a crime.” – Jack Kervorkian


Premise 1: “My life, my death, my choice” – freedom of choice. – use in conclusion

Evidence (what?):

Warrant (why/how?):

Premise 2: Animals who are in severe pain and distress are allowed to die. Humans aren’t.

Evidence (what?):

Warrant (why/how?):

Premise 3: The healthcare/medical industry is about prolonging life – but prolonging life is not always the best outcome for the patient.

Evidence (what?):

Warrant (why/how?):

Premise 4: Legalising voluntary euthanasia will not create a “slippery slope effect” where involuntary euthanasia occurs.

Evidence (what?):

Warrant (why/how?):


Premise 5:

Society’s most vulnerable will not become victims of unethical euthanasia.

Evidence (what?):

Warrant (why/how?):