1,250 and 1,500 words – double spaced.
Reaction/Critique of article provided: “Recommendations on medical assistance in dying and persons with a mental disorder” page 5-29.
You should begin with a short general introduction (not a summary of the readings) before critically analyzing some the issues raised by the paper. A critical
approach is preferred, but “critical” does not necessarily mean negative criticism. It simply means that you go beyond a mere descriiption of the issues and
add your personal, argued reflections on the topic.
Important elements in the evaluation are your ability to pick out clearly the key themes, the merits of the arguments made, and your engagement with the
arguments: tensions you explore, or flaws in the logic/reasoning of the paper(s) you read. You can also point out some of the key questions that in your view
remain. You may try to point out how different disciplinary approaches (law, political science, economics, philosophy, and health services research) would
approach the questions/issues discussed, and whether there is any value in considering a particular issue from a different discipline than the one the author
has selected.
Again, to reiterate: avoid spending too much time summarizing the arguments made, but rather engage with them critically.
Further Clarifying Points:
1. Strive for clarity. The following three structural elements are helpful: a short introductory paragraph that poses the issues/questions/concerns and how
you are going to deal with those issues/questions/concerns; an argument or series of arguments which together make up your response to those
issues/questions/concerns; a brief conclusion that ties your arguments together.
2. Avoid describing the contents of the readings.
3. Come to a conclusion. However, in reaching a conclusion you do not have to agree with any one position or argument or present a “solution” that the
presenter (or anyone else) has not thought of. It is more important to identify the important questions raised by the topic and to explore the range of potential
answers, particularly from the perspective of the different disciplinary approaches mentioned above (i.e., law, economics, political science, etc.). It is
absolutely fine to be uncertain about issues, arguments, etc…
4. Whatever your conclusion, it must be based on the arguments you have made in the body of the work. Take the time to digest what you are writing. While
writing and re-writing, you may actually change your argument.
5. Address at least some of the central positions and themes articulated in the reading. So make sure you identify the themes and positions made in the
paper before starting to write your own reaction paper. If a paper raises several issues, you can also simply indicate that you will focus on one of them.
6. No Sources. it’s a critical thinking of this paper