Hi! I’m writing a paper for english in the position for government intervention (instead of family intervention) in cases that involve someone in a vegetative state, but I ran into a con that I really can’t argue against:
“One arguement commonly raised is that the government will only use the person in the vegetative state as a political pawn.” (I made this up btw)
I’m trying to write the paper from the position that would be pro government intervention, but what could I say against this? I mean, it is technically true…and there ARE examples of it (i.e. Elian Gonzales and Terry Schiavo).
should I just turn the entire paper around and argue from the opposite side???
