Analysis
Rhetorical Analysis
By: Breana Childers
Prisoners Should Be Used For Medical Experiments Without Consent. By: DHC Karma
The article deals with human rights, controversial issues and boundaries between human rights of individuals (the general population) versus the rights of a group (prisoners). The article uses predominantly logos to convince readers everyone has equal rights. The articles main point is that everyone is born equal, but then the author goes on to say that he believes prisoners should be used for medical experiments against their will.
One example he uses deal with basic rights to make the readers feel obligated to accept everyone, even prisoners as equal. An example “Human rights have been a controversial issue because it is very difficult to draw the boundary between the rights of the individual (the general population) versus the rights of a group (prisoners.) At the same time, we accept the fact that while all humans are entitled to protection of natural basic rights, there are always limits on these rights.” This is a poor example because it’s taking away prisoners basic rights. It says that “It is acceptable to infringe on the rights of criminals sentenced to the death penalty in order to save massive quantity of human life and preserve the continuity of the human race.” This is basically like the saying “one bad apple will spoil the bunch.” That’s a bad example because you can’t test on other humans because they did something bad to end up in prison. That’s not letting the group (prisoners) have equal rights as the individuals (general population.)
The author is showing the differences between volunteers and making one person something do something they don’t want to do. He tries to make them feel no remorse for the prisoners. “But the tests must continue. Therefore we propose that tests in certain humans should be allowed, without their consent. By those humans, we refer exclusively to death penalized prisoners. They harm other people, commit crimes and thus are sentenced to death by laws. This shows how he ahs no sympathy for prisoners. He doesn’t treat them as human beings, but he treats them as if they we’re test animals.
The author says everyone has equal rights but then turn around and say that prisoners are condemned to different levels of punishment according to the law, and the punishment should be medical injections. “Vaccine tests will usually be conducted in hundreds of people before doing a mass test. And this first step is usually the most dangerous phase. We want to protect more healthy people and want them to continue their normal lives. We would not call volunteers, since once anything severe happens, it is unfair to them. They are such good and warm hearted citizens. However, there are people who disobeyed laws or committed serious crimes.” How do you expect everyone to have equal rights, but then turn around and say that prisoners should have different levels of punishments? Here the author contradicts himself.
Another example is using logos. It is a fact that some people are sentenced to the death penalty because of the crime committed. But should medial experiments be used on living prisoners. “Why not just test volunteers who consent to being exposed to dangerous vaccines? Well the answer is quite simple, time and risk. The speed at which pandemic viruses can spread rapid. Global and national health organizations have to be able to react instantly to a new virus threat, and that means having a body of test subjects that can be utilized without delay. Calling volunteers will take more time. There will be more innocent people infected or even died of a pandemic disease during this period. Prisoners al already get health checked before they go to jail. So it will save a lot of precious time when a break out happens.” This questions the authors article. How do you say you don’t want prisoners to be used as experiments but then questions if they should or not.
My final example is showing how they value living non prisoners more than they do prisoners. They say they want the living innocent people to continue their living healthy lives, and rather do the bad things to the prisoners. “These types of tests drugs may also be more dangerous that we are typically used to. We do not want to risk everybody’s life to unknown and dangerous medications. So we would rather use prisoners versus non prisoners. Question if everyone should have equal rights, then why are you taking the rights of prisoners away?
Over all the article is a poor explanation of how prisoners should be treated equally. The article constantly contradicts its self and didn’t give enough factual evidence to support the explanation. The article is very unclear about what side the author wants to take. Sometimes the author is for it, and then in other parts the author is against.
By: Breana Childers
Prisoners Should Be Used For Medical Experiments Without Consent. By: DHC Karma
The article deals with human rights, controversial issues and boundaries between human rights of individuals (the general population) versus the rights of a group (prisoners). The article uses predominantly logos to convince readers everyone has equal rights. The articles main point is that everyone is born equal, but then the author goes on to say that he believes prisoners should be used for medical experiments against their will.
One example he uses deal with basic rights to make the readers feel obligated to accept everyone, even prisoners as equal. An example “Human rights have been a controversial issue because it is very difficult to draw the boundary between the rights of the individual (the general population) versus the rights of a group (prisoners.) At the same time, we accept the fact that while all humans are entitled to protection of natural basic rights, there are always limits on these rights.” This is a poor example because it’s taking away prisoners basic rights. It says that “It is acceptable to infringe on the rights of criminals sentenced to the death penalty in order to save massive quantity of human life and preserve the continuity of the human race.” This is basically like the saying “one bad apple will spoil the bunch.” That’s a bad example because you can’t test on other humans because they did something bad to end up in prison. That’s not letting the group (prisoners) have equal rights as the individuals (general population.)
The author is showing the differences between volunteers and making one person something do something they don’t want to do. He tries to make them feel no remorse for the prisoners. “But the tests must continue. Therefore we propose that tests in certain humans should be allowed, without their consent. By those humans, we refer exclusively to death penalized prisoners. They harm other people, commit crimes and thus are sentenced to death by laws. This shows how he ahs no sympathy for prisoners. He doesn’t treat them as human beings, but he treats them as if they we’re test animals.
The author says everyone has equal rights but then turn around and say that prisoners are condemned to different levels of punishment according to the law, and the punishment should be medical injections. “Vaccine tests will usually be conducted in hundreds of people before doing a mass test. And this first step is usually the most dangerous phase. We want to protect more healthy people and want them to continue their normal lives. We would not call volunteers, since once anything severe happens, it is unfair to them. They are such good and warm hearted citizens. However, there are people who disobeyed laws or committed serious crimes.” How do you expect everyone to have equal rights, but then turn around and say that prisoners should have different levels of punishments? Here the author contradicts himself.
Another example is using logos. It is a fact that some people are sentenced to the death penalty because of the crime committed. But should medial experiments be used on living prisoners. “Why not just test volunteers who consent to being exposed to dangerous vaccines? Well the answer is quite simple, time and risk. The speed at which pandemic viruses can spread rapid. Global and national health organizations have to be able to react instantly to a new virus threat, and that means having a body of test subjects that can be utilized without delay. Calling volunteers will take more time. There will be more innocent people infected or even died of a pandemic disease during this period. Prisoners al already get health checked before they go to jail. So it will save a lot of precious time when a break out happens.” This questions the authors article. How do you say you don’t want prisoners to be used as experiments but then questions if they should or not.
My final example is showing how they value living non prisoners more than they do prisoners. They say they want the living innocent people to continue their living healthy lives, and rather do the bad things to the prisoners. “These types of tests drugs may also be more dangerous that we are typically used to. We do not want to risk everybody’s life to unknown and dangerous medications. So we would rather use prisoners versus non prisoners. Question if everyone should have equal rights, then why are you taking the rights of prisoners away?
Over all the article is a poor explanation of how prisoners should be treated equally. The article constantly contradicts its self and didn’t give enough factual evidence to support the explanation. The article is very unclear about what side the author wants to take. Sometimes the author is for it, and then in other parts the author is against.