Inadvertent plagiarism?

[emerswag]

<p>Yesterday as my AP Language class was ending my teacher mentioned that three students has plagiarized a recent assignment, and if they did not come in and speak with him after school they would not only fail it but loose any ability to re-submit it. I thought nothing of it at the time, but when I got home and checked my grades online sure enough there was an F waiting for me.</p>

<p>The point of the assignment was to choose a controversial issue and present it through a dialogue of two different speakers, one concerned with society and the other with individualism. I picked physician assisted suicide, and since I wasn’t that versed in the subject my first thought was to look up some pros and cons of it and base my arguments around them. I really don’t understand how that can be considered plagiarism- there’s only so many logical arguments that can be made on a subject. My assignment matched up perfectly in format to examples we went over in class, the only difference was I researched my points from an online source instead of coming up with them off the top of my head. We’ve never been instructed to cite sources, or even how to. (aside from something like an MLA)</p>

<p>I’m going to go in early tomorrow (in about 3 hours) and speak with my teacher about it. If anybody has any advice it’d be much appreciated.</p>

<p>

@Soruce

Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?
Yes:
Tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved.
The right to die should be a fundamental freedom of each person.
Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves.
Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums.
Nurse and doctor time can be freed up to work on savable patients.
Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom.
Pain and anguish of the patient’s family and friends can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes.
Reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life.
Vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others.
Without physician assistance, people may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying, and traumatic way.</p>

<p>No:
It would violate doctors’ Hippocratic oath.
It demeans the value of human life.
It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses.
Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others.
Doctors and families may be prompted to give up on recovery much too early.
Government and insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure.
Miracle cures or recoveries can occur.
Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical.

</p>

<p>

@Essay

Mr. Etzioni: Physician-assisted suicide is immoral and sets a precedent for the devaluation of human life, its conditional legality should not remain under any circumstances.
Mr. Szasz: If diagnosed with an incurable medical condition, a patient deserves the freedom to end their life. It has since been carried out professionally and elegantly, no more as “a demeanor on human life” than yourself, Mr. Etzioni.
Mr. Etzioni: Sir, while it may be of no concern you, preserving human life is of the utmost importance. Simply killing off those we label terminal will not only prematurely end countless lives, but delay medicinal advancements and the motivation to seek cures. What if we were to face a widespread illness that was deemed “incurable”, (much like the smallpox bubonic plague once were, might I add) would we just resort to unanimous genocide? No freedom as substantial as the right to kill could be introduced without opening the floodgates for looser legislation, to the extent of physically healthy citizens ending their own lives due to curable mental conditions. Furthermore, a doctor by his very title is sworn to “do no harm.” If they flagrantly chose to act against their oath by killing, their overall commitment to their values is weakened as well as their reputation. Doctors are already entailed to a great amount of power over their patients and if any bias is held in favor of ending one’s life, and the more commonplace it would be to pull the plug, the more easily they easily could abuse their position.
Mr. Szasz: Sir, this is not a matter of what is best for the study of medicine and sciences. These people are facing unsurmountable pain, and to belittle their life to that of a statistic is appalling, even coming from the likes of you, Mr. Etzioni. There is no “label” that designates one the right to end their lives, it is illnesses such as cancer that invoke, long, agonizing, inevitable deaths which leave few rational options for patients. Our species has withstood many a disease in the past, as you mentioned, and if fit it should withstand a thousand more. Medicine does nothing but corrupt natural selection. However, I digress, as your claim that we would no longer research cures simply because it is easier to kill ourselves has no basis as there is no reliance on the dying for such cures. Your tinfoil-hat cries of doctors being corrupt lack any basis or precedent. Licensing doctors to end lives only places more observation over them, alongside the duration and attention that each case grants, the career will only be taken more seriously. Your sole claim worthy of insight is that this law will open the door for easier pathways to suicide. Are you unaware that we lived in a society where there weren’t already men killing themselves left and right? If one is intent on taking their life, Mr. Etzioni, they will do so. Better it is preformed in a medicinal setting than the horrifyingly traumatic norm. In fact, as concerned as you are about saving lives, consider the bulk of time consumed on dying patients rather than those who could be saved. Not only is this nonsensical but it costs your “society” its precious tax dollars (and your insurance companies their holiday bonuses). Additionally, rare vital organs (such as the heart you appear to be lacking) may be saved, allowing a suicide to bring more net life than is lost. As much as you speak of maintaining a high view of human life, it is uncanny and demoralizing to watch a loved one lay in a hospital bed as they degrade to a shell of their formal selves.

</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[Kieran0696]

<p>I can certainly sympathize with your argument; however, I can also see your teacher’s refusing to change her mind. </p>

<p>I would argue your case the same way you just did. Emphasize how you used your internet sources to simply guide your train of thought, and show that your commentary makes your work distinctively different from anything found on Google.</p>

[halcyonheather]

<p>In these places it’s a little repetitive:</p>

<p>Source: “have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves”
Essay: “as they degrade to a shell of their formal selves”</p>

<p>Source: “open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides”
Essay: “without opening the floodgates for looser legislation”</p>

<p>Did he say you had to come up with the arguments on your own?</p>

[emerswag]

<p>

@halcyonheather

In these places it’s a little repetitive:</p>

<p>Source: “have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves”
Essay: “as they degrade to a shell of their formal selves”</p>

<p>Source: “open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides”
Essay: “without opening the floodgates for looser legislation”</p>

<p>Did he say you had to come up with the arguments on your own?

Yeah, those were areas where the source used vocab that I really liked. Obviously if I knew the paper was going to be compared to the source I wouldn’t of been that repetitive. </p>

<p>As for direction, this was the assignment:

@Mr. Szasz and Mr. Etzioni Go Head-to-Head

Having read “Drug Prohibition” by Thomas Szasz and “When Rights Collide” by Amitati Etzioni, your assignment is to write a “point/counterpoint” argumentation articulating how these authors’ points of view differ.</p>

<p>In matters dealing with the rights of the individual versus those of society, they will differ.
You may choose any topic under the sun about which argumentation would have a significant difference opinion on. Remember: Szasz is generally concerned with the rights of the individual. Etzioni, on the other hand, is concerned with the welfare of society. Don’t Shoehorn. Avoid, too, turning one fellow into a “straw man”. Instead, choose topics that reflect appropriate values of each person and present a reasonable debate.

</p>