British philosopher Stephen Toulmin adds six terms to Aristotle’s shaping of an
argument. The six terms are the claim, grounds, warrants, backing, qualifiers and the
rebuttals. Toulmin proclaims that these six terms can be used to analyze arguments and
can also be applied within any argument. Emanuel LL, CF von Gunten, and FD Farris
are all authors of “EPEC Participant’s Handbook” they make use of all six of Toulmin’s
terms in this controversial article.
The authors define the difference between physician assisted suicide and
euthanasia. This source contains different viewpoints, written by various
authors that contain information about both sides of the issue. They explain the certain
factors to why patients may ask for assistance in their suicide. Their goal in the
article, is to explain to the physician’s about the certain steps and protocols that are
needed when responding to patient suicide requests or assisting in their suicide.
Claim or thesis is what you are seeking to prove and what the argument is about.
There are three types of different claims, which are fact, value and policy. The claim of
fact argues about history or the future. Claims of value, argues about judgments, such
as, good or bad, wrong or right. The policy claim, argues about what should or should
not have happened. This article is a claim of value, because we are dealing with a right
or wrong issue. The authors claim is physician assisted suicide should be legalized.
Data is the second component in Toulmin’s argument model. Data includes the
evidence, facts and is often the reasons and logic that support the claim. There are a lot
of facts used in this article to support the claim for legalization of assisted suicide. The
first example given is that “a recent study showed, 57% of physicians practicing today
have received a request for physician-assisted suicide in some form or another”
(Emanuel LL, CF von Gunten, and FD Farris 4.). The another example of data in their
claim is “In one study, pain alone was a motivator in 3% of requests, pain was one of
several motivators in 46% of requests” (Emanuel LL, CF von Gunten, and FD Farris 4).
The warrant is the third component in Toulmin’s argument, it is the glue that
holds the claim together with the data. The warrant that holds the authors data and
claim is that “First, physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to
promote the dignity of dying patients in their care. Second, the principle of patient bodily
integrity requires that physicians respect patients’ competent decisions to forgo life-
sustaining treatment (Emanuel LL, CF von Gunten, and FD Farris 5). So, with many