Dealing with counter arguments Click on the highlighted text to see the comments. It is important in law to be able to deal well with both sides of an argument. You must not only present your side convincingly, but you must also show why the arguments of the opposing side are less convincing. One way to deal with opposing arguments is as follows: Expose the weaknesses in the opposing position. Anticipate the weaknesses in your own argument that opponents will try to expose, and provide some defence for them. Acknowledging potential weaknesses can sometimes lead you to qualify or adjust your own position, thus strengthening it. Look at the following table which shows an argument, counter-argument, and one possible response to the counter-argument:
Argument
Counter-argument
The primary focus in medical end-of-life decisions should be on patient consent, rather than doctor intention, because it is not a breach against a patient's rights if s/he consents to the termination of their life.
Terminally ill patients are likely to be depressed, and therefore unable to consent to their hastened death in a balanced or acceptable way.
Response to counterargument
Depression can be managed. The relevance of depression must be made on a case-bycase basis. Depression does not warrant a general rule prohibiting patients from consenting to a hastened death.
Look at the following paragraph, which is one way in which you might dismiss this counterargument:
It is often feared that basing medical end-of-life decisions on patient consent may lead to abuse, since many terminally ill patients are depressed, and therefore unable to make sound decisions on matters of such significance. Although such patients may have a greater tendency to depression, we cannot justifiably assume all patients are depressed, or that depression, even when present, prevents a patient from consenting in a balanced and acceptable way. Depression is generally manageable nowadays, and medical diagnosis can determine when a person is incapable of making such a decision. Therefore, the issue of depression should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and not be a reason for prohibiting choice in general.
Notice the following points: i.
The counter-argument is presented fairly.
ii.
Merit in the counter-argument is acknowledged ("Although such patients may have a greater tendency to depression..."), but reasons why it does not undermine the case being made are given.
Conceding merit in the counter-argument leads in this case to a modification of the original position. Instead of simply holding that consent should be the basis of end-of-life decisions, there is now recognition that in some circumstances consent is not sufficient, since it may not have been given after reasonable and balanced consideration.
Look at another counter-argument and the writer's response to it where, once again, merit in the counter-argument is conceded:
Argument
Counter-argument
The primary focus in medical end-of-life decisions should be on patient consent, rather than doctor intention, because it is not a breach against a patient's rights if s/he consents to the termination of their life.
Vulnerable people might be persuaded by relatives or hospitals to consent to early death because it will save costs, and it is the law's duty to protect vulnerable people.
Response to counterargument
The law could introduce rigorous procedures for establishing consent, and introduce heavy penalties for those who do try to influence decisions.
Sometimes you will make no concessions at all to a counter-argument. You will simply show it to be unjustified or irrelevant. Look at the following:
Argument
Counter-argument
Response to counter-argument
The primary focus in medical end-of-life decisions should be on patient consent, rather than doctor intention, because it is not a breach against a patient's rights if s/he consents to the termination of their life.
Allowing voluntary euthanasia will result in less respect for life (for example in a greater tolerance of nonvoluntary euthanasia), and this is to be avoided.
Evidence from the Netherlands shows that liberal euthanasia laws do not lead to an increase in non-voluntary euthanasia; if anything they lead to a decrease. Respecting individual choice might lead to greater respect for life, not less.
It is not always easy to deal satisfactorily with counter-arguments because you are not very sympathetic toward them and the temptation is to treat their weaknesses as obvious and therefore easily dismissed. However, you need to represent fairly what the counter-position is, and then provide sound and clear reasons for resisting it. Look at how the following counter-argument against active voluntary euthanasia is dealt with:
The only other possible justification that the government can have for continuing to prohibit active voluntary euthanasia is that it is harmful to society, and therefore not simply an issue of personal choice. But when a terminally ill adult of sound mind makes a carefully considered decision to have his or her life terminated by a medical practitioner also of sound mind, how can this be harmful to the community as a whole?
Is this an effective response to the counter-argument?
Yes No