After making an impassioned argument for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, Morticia is informed by advocates taking a contrary position that much of her most compelling testimony is misleading. Morticia agrees and apologizes, noting that she was relying solely on information she obtained from the Final Exit Network (a group that supports assisted suicide even when the individual is not terminally ill). Has Morticia acted as a responsible advocate?
What will be an ideal response?
No. Advocates are ultimately responsible for the truth of their statements. Responsible
research demands a bit of balance on the part of the researcher and the Final Exit Network can be
expected to provide only their side of the story. In this case, where the issue is quite literally a
matter of life or death, Morticia should have acted more responsibly and probably sought out
differing views. The possibility that she relied so heavily on the Network as a secondary source
calls her information into question.
You might also like to view...
What process helps supply the required organization and discipline keep a group of 20 or more members resolute and carry out tasks effectively?
a. Parliamentary procedure b. Delphi technique c. Brainstorming d. Problem-solving
Stanley is watching a television show on Netflix to examine its emphasis on racial discourse and power differences between societal levels. What might be one limitation Stanley encounters if he wants to analyze this show critically?
a. The show may not explore the role of power as effectively as possible. b. The show may not help Stanley understand communication better during real interactions. c. The show may reinforce stereotypical racial norms. d. The show may not allow him to create his own interpretations and analysis.