Should Euthanasia Be Legalized in the Uk free essay sample

Active euthanasia involves the use of direct action in order to end the patient’s life whilst passive euthanasia is the withholding of medical aid in order to allow the patient to die naturally such as not performing life-extending surgery or turning off a life support system. The next distinction is between Voluntary and Involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia involves the patient’s termination at their own request whilst involuntary euthanasia occurs when the patient is unable to ably make a decision and therefore a suitable person makes the decision for them. Indirect euthanasia involves treating the patients pain but with the side effect of death, the primary intention is often used to justify the outcome. This is often referred to as the doctrine of double effect and in reality is not considered euthanasia given that the real purpose of the treatment is pain relief and death is merely seen as the side-affect. We will write a custom essay sample on Should Euthanasia Be Legalized in the Uk? or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Finally there is assisted suicide which involves a patient incapable of committing suicide themselves asks for assistance in doing so. Euthanasia is a controversial topic that contradicts the age old moral injunction â€Å"thou shalt not kill†[2]. But similarly denying patient’s of this choice is defying medical practice cornerstones such as the patient’s autonomy and promoting their best interests. Different countries hold varying stances on Euthanasia but it is currently illegal in the UK. Most recently the case of Tony Nicklinson, a man totally paralysed by locked-in syndrome requesting euthanasia, has come to the forefront of the debate. Given the right to take his case to the high court, a win would mark a significant step towards the legalisation of euthanasia in the UK. Tony Nicklinson commented on topic via his wife stating that â€Å"it’s no longer acceptable for 21st century medicine to be governed by 20th century attitudes to death†. Both sides of the debate are strongly supported with organisations such as pro-life group â€Å"Care Not Killing† and pro-choice group â€Å"Dignity in Dying†. Advocates for Euthanasia include Lady Warnock and Margo Macdonald MSP. In 2008 Warnock controversially suggested that those living with dementia should consider uthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and medical resources. Whilst this seems extreme experts predict by 2026 there will be one million dementia sufferers in the UK costing the NHS approximately ? 35 billion annually. Margo Macdonald is an independent MSP who suffers from Parkinsons and campaigns for the legalisation of assisted suicide. She first brought her â€Å"End of Life Assistance Bill† to government in December 2010 when it was defeated but she is now again trying to have the revised version of her bill brought into effect. So far in the UK there has been no one charged for aiding suicide but cases such as that of Debbie Purdy and Dianne Pretty have brought this fact into question. In Scotland the organization Dignity in Dying continues to campaign for the changing of British Laws arguing that â€Å"The question for politicians in Britain today is why do you force your citizens, people in the most terrible circumstances who are determined to end their suffering in a way of their own choosing, to leave their country and travel to Switzerland to exercise their free will. Surveys carried out conclude that 80% of UK Citizens and 64% of General Practitioners support the legalization of Euthanasia and yet in 1997 the seventh attempt to have Euthanasia legalized in the UK was rejected by parliament. The Suicide Act 1961, updated by the Coroners and Justice act 2009, makes encouraging or assisting in a suicide a crime with a 14 year sentence. This has led to what is commonly referred to as â€Å"suicide touri sm† in which those restricted by the laws of their own country travel abroad to places where they can legally seek Euthanasia. This has become very common practice in Switzerland where the organisation â€Å"Dignitas† provide Euthanasia using trained doctors and nurses. As of 2008 a reported 100 British citizens have used Dignetas’ services. It has been argued that citizens of the UK should not have to make this final journey to Switzerland to end their lives away from the comfort of home and many feel that given it’s ongoing it may as well be legalised in the UK. Similarly opponents fear that given the legalisation of euthanasia the UK could become the new â€Å"graveyard of Europe† as is the phrase used to describe Switzerland. In England, the director of public prosecutions has indicated he is unlikely to take legal action against those who assist the suicide of friends or relatives who have a settled and informed wish to die. However, Scotland was given no similar lenience. Arguments for the legalisation of Euthanasia A clear indicator that the UK needs Euthanasia legislation is the vast support that exists for it. An impressive 88% people would support the legalisation of euthanasia in some form. [3] Many see it as what should be a choice at the end of one’s life or when faced with a futile future. If we put down animals to end their suffering it is difficult to understand why we cannot offer the same grace to our fellow human beings. It is extremely important that we give those who feel like their dignity has been taken away the ending that they want. It is also important that this choice can be offered to patients at home. The decision is difficult enough to make regardless of being forced to travel abroad to have euthanasia. Being at home would also allow the patient to die peacefully surrounded by loved ones. Loved ones are often put in very difficult situations by the illegality of euthanasia. Cases such as that of Debbie Purdy and Dianne Pretty highlight the issue of family members being prosecuted should they assist their partners in dying. Dianne, who appealed to many courts including the European Court of Human Rights to request her husband assisting her death, lost her case dying from the degenerative condition Motor Neurone disease in 2002. Debbie was more successful and gained immunity for her husband as he helped her travel to Dignitas to be given euthanasia. The UK has a duty to desperate patients to offer well-monitered euthanasia, rather than forcing them to go abroad or live in agony. A pragmatic however slightly insensitive argument for legalising Euthanasia would be the amount of medical resources it would free up. In many countries health services are limited and those with illnesses cannot be treated due to massive demand. Meanwhile treatment is being provided for those who do not want it and cannot be cured. Allowing these people euthanasia will not only satisfy their needs but also with the positive effect of increased medical care for those who need and want it. This argument is unconvincing to those morally opposed to the act of euthanasia itself regardless of how many people can be helped because of the increased medical resources. Another rejection of this argument is that euthanasia would be abused and involuntary euthanasia would take place as a quick solution for lack of medical resources. It would put pressure on the weak and vulnerable in our society into euthanasia as soon as they are terminally ill. Another argument in favour of legalizing euthanasia is since it happens anyway, it is better to make it legal so that it can be regulated appropriately. This argument is similar to that used to justify the legalisation of abortions in that it is justified by arguing that without proper facilities people will die in backstreet abortions. If passive Euthanasia is in wide use anyway surely it is better to at least regulate this process even if it is not preferable. For example DNR (Do not resuscitate) order in which a patient has requested not to be resuscitated if they stop breathing or their heart stops beating. This is in essence passive euthanasia, it is not such an extreme step to legalize euthanasia. Similarly palliative sedation often used to reduce pain but with the risk of shortening a patients life is again essentially active euthanasia. The Tony Bland case gives example of a public case of euthanasia that was not prosecuted. Tony Bland was a 17-year old seriously injured in the Hillsborough disaster in April 1989. Left in PVS until 1993 it was thought that his brain was too severely damaged for a recovery. The family and NHS trust requested to withdraw the equipment keeping him alive and the high courts agreed. Another issue that legalising euthanasia would solve would be that of the disparity between active and passive euthanasia. Whilst in medical practice passive euthanasia is widely used and active euthanasia is seen as the greater evil. However this distinction is nonsensical. Often cited is the metaphorical case of Smith and Jones in which Smith drowns his cousin disguising it as an accident in order to gain inheritance. Jones on the other hand has the same intention but discovers that his cousin has slipped and drowned himself and whilst he could easily save him he decides not to in order to gain his inheritance. The case highlights even when the outcome is the same the act is very much the same as the omission. As passive euthanasia already exists can active euthanasia not be legalised on the basis that it is morally exactly the same? From a purely pragmatic perspective it is easy to see that Euthanasia already exists in the United Kingdom, it is irresponsible to ignore something that must be regulated much like similarly controversial issues such as abortion. Furthermore it is difficult to see why there is killing is acceptable in certain situations such as self defense, but is however banned in this case. Palliative care is limited at best. There are situations and conditions that cannot be controlled. Furthermore often when people decide that they want to die, they tend to be of rational thought and will follow through their request. Even if they die comfortably in a hospice this is not what they want, their only wish was for death. Euthanasia will only be considered by those whom modern medical treatments cannot help and therefore it must be legalised regardless of any medical advancements and improved hospice conditions. For the last 10 years Oregon, USA has had legal assisted suicide. Notably Oregon has the best palliative care in the entire USA and yet 90% still seek assisted suicide from within this system. [4] This is conclusive proof that whilst palliative care may be a great option for some it is not the be all and end all and in some cases it is essential to have the option to have euthanasia legally. Another concern of anti-euthanasia activists is that euthanasia legislation will stifle investment in palliative care, but again there is evidence from Oregon that these concerns are totally unfounded. The percentage of people dying in palliative care has risen from 37% in 2002 to 52% in 2009, one of the highest rates in the USA[5]. Secular stances on euthanasia offer interesting moral arguments both in favour of and against legalising euthanasia. For Kantians euthanasia is not entirely clear issue. For Kantians it is important when creating moral guidelines that for an action to be moral it must be universalisable. Kantianism is the theory that we should stick to a set of compulsory rules and avoid letting emotions or inclinations to cloud our judgement and avoid trying to predict the outcomes of our actions. Kant argued that acting on ones emotional inclinations is to act irrationally and that consequences could only be considered if they were constantly predictable, which they aren’t. Kantianism being a deontological theory proposes that the most moral actions are those that are done out of the duty to do the right thing, and supports that an action is moral if the intention is good not the consequence. Kant believed that there are categorical imperatives i. e. actions that are either right or wrong and to do a wrong act to achieve a positive result is immoral. When it comes to Euthanasia Kantians would look for the moral action as apposed to the loving action. Kantians utilise both the universability test and the ends in them selves test in order to gauge categorical imperatives to follow. The statement â€Å"everyone should be helped to die† would not be an action that could be universally accepted and therefore fails this first essential component of a categorical imperative. However if the statement was â€Å"everyone who is terminally ill and wishes to die should be helped to die† this may be more viable. In this, there is potential confusion over this part of the categorical imperative. Similarly the ends in themselves test is equally incoherent as it could be argued that killing someone to end there pain was using them as a means to an end. On the other hand other Kantians could argue that a persons ends were best served by ending their life. Immanuel Kant himself was implicitly against any form of suicide so this would suggest Kantians must be of a similar stance but modern Kantian thinkers often disagree. Contrastingly to Kantian ethics Utilitarianism does not need a moral act to be universally acceptable. Utilitarianism is the theory generally credited to English philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism states that an action is right if it creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians believe that an action is not intrinsically either right or wrong. Depending on the situation the answer as to what to do varies, but in all situations the fundamental goal is happiness. The morality of the action depends solely on the consequences, and utilitarians will try to predict the outcome and base their decision on this. Laws and general rules are disregarded by this theory. The most important factor here is that the action that creates the greatest amount of happiness and least amount of pain. This being the case Utilitarians would be in favour of voluntary euthanasia. Utilitarians use the process of Hedonic Calculus in order to determine morality. The Hedonic calculus takes into account various factors such as intensity duration, propinquity, fecundity, purity and xtent of the pleasure Clearly it is very common for the continuation of a patient’s existence is more likely to bring them and all those around them more pain than pleasure. Furthermore the resources being used to keep them alive could be better used in bringing pleasure to others. Utilitarianism combats the common criticism of Euthanasia, that no one given expert medical treatment need di e in pain, with the valid point that having autonomy and the right to choose is itself a pleasure. However there are flaws in the Utilitarian system of ethics when addressing the issue of Euthanasia. It would seem that involuntary euthanasia too could be justified by the hedonic calculus if enough people stood to gain pleasure from the termination of a patient. This is the age old issue that has faced Utilitarianism with the â€Å"tyranny of the majority† meaning that given enough people with a contrary view, an individuals happiness can become completely irrelevant. The second issue is the idea if Utilitarians were to have their way and the law was indeed altered to allow Euthanasia, there would be pressure on the vulnerable to choose the option of Euthanasia to relieve the burden that they are. This however would lead to great unhappiness. In this way there could be a contradiction as the issue of whether or not changing the law would bring about the greatest amount of happiness or not. The Libertarian view would support euthanasia on the grounds that it can be in the best interests of everyone involved without violating anyone else’s rights and is therefore morally acceptable. Those opposed that Euthanasia does not qualify as an act that is in the best interests of people involved and has no detrimental effect on society. They argue that things that are in our best interests are not always morally sound. What may appear to be in one’s best interests may be unclear and could end up having terrible consequences. It is impossible to claim that euthanasia is in any way a private act it’s repurcussions on society would be gargantuan. Arguments against the legalisation of euthanasia An argument often employed by those against euthanasia legislation is the â€Å"slippery slope† argument that says if voluntary euthanasia is permitted, involuntary euthanasia will inevitably follow. The comparison to Nazis is often drawn as they used â€Å"humane† excuses to exterminate mentally and physically disabled patients during the holocaust. This highlights to arguments against the legalisation of euthanasia. Firstly the idea that one cannot discriminate between lawful and unlawful cases of euthanasia. Secondly the idea that mercy killing will become an accepted action and will lead to unjustified killings. Another example used is that of the legalisation of abortion in 1967 which was intended only to permit in exceptional cases but spiraled into a very common occurrence. The worry is that euthanasia will follow suit and become an on demand service. The slippery slope argument is riddled with faults. Humanists would argue that the comparison with Nazism is nonsensical as it never began as voluntary euthanasia, it was always an evil act rather than an escalation. Furthermore they argue that the line between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is clear cut and therefore easily monitored. Cases such as that of Dianne Pretty serve as evidence that in the majority of cases it is very clear that the patient is making the choice for themselves. In Peter Singer’s A Companion to Ethics Helga Kushe states that â€Å"in the Netherlands a social experiment with active voluntary euthanasia is currently in progress. As yet there is no evidence this has sent Dutch society down a slippery slope†[6]. The comparison opponents draw between euthanasia and abortion is a weak one. The former in this case is the choice of sane and sensible people about their own life whilst the latter concerns an unconscious foetus with no one to protect it. Finally humanists argue that they do not recognise the danger that legalising euthanasia would belittle other laws surrounding death, such as murder. There is a great disparity between helping someone to die at their request and killing an innocent victim. As ethicist John Harris put it â€Å"if there is a slippery slope, legislation would apply crampons rather than skis†[7]. The case of Jack Kevorkian could be used as evidence of how it would be difficult to monitor the legalisation of euthanasia and how it could descend into a darker area. Between 1990 and 1998 Dr Jack Kevorkian a doctor in Michigan USA, assisted 130 terminally ill people. In this time he was tried 4 times, the first 3 aquitted and the last one ending in mistrial. In 1999 Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and the delivery of a controlled substance. The case highlights certain issues that may arise if UK law was changed concerning euthanasia. Whilst each individual allegedly took the final step of suicide in all the cases there were many questionable circumstances. At least 19 of the patients died within 24 hours of first meeting Dr Kevorkian. At lease 5 had a history of depression. 17 were not referred to a pain specialist after complaining of chronic pain. He failed to get the medical records of many of his patients and it is thought that many of them did not have terminal illnesses. However proponents of Euthanasia would point to Dr Kevorkian as an exampled of why Euthanasia must be legalised so that it can be properly regulated by authorities. An ethical argument used against euthanasia is the sanctity of life argument that suggests life has an intrinsic value and euthanasia tarnishes this. Human life has an intrinsic value regardless of its quality and religious people see it as a gift from God. This argument follows Kant’s belief that humans should be treated as ends in themselves and the fact that we are humans has value in itself. This also applies to ourselves, we must treat ourselves with this same respect and should not seek the easy way to alleviate suffering. However this argument loses credibility as the sanctity of life argument is generally associated with religion and only about 15% of the population of Britain worship on a regular basis. Religious people often use the argument that euthanasia is like playing God and that it is only God’s right to decide when and how we die. This is difficult to comprehend though as by this definition all medical interventions such as surgery are â€Å"playing God† but most religious people consider this normal and are often party to it. Humanists would argue that we do not have to look to a deity to answer when and how we must die. They argue that such important issues should not invoke God and laws should never be based on claims which rely on religious faith. Some religious people see the moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia and that the latter is the only morally permissible option. However humanists believe that it is in fact the former that has a stronger case as it is quicker and therefore less painful. The general consensus amongst Christians is that life is given and taken by God as it is mentioned in Job 1:21 â€Å"God gives and God takes away† and interfering with this process goes against natural law. Christians believe that each human was made in the image of God and therefore is extremely special. This life should be preserved and protected and to propose Euthanasia for an individual is to judge that their life is not worthwhile. Making this judgement goes against Christian beliefs as they believe that only God can judge. It is widely believed in the church that the moment preceding death is one of profound spirituality and importance and to interrupt with this process would be terrible. The ten commandments in Exodus implicitly reject killing â€Å"thou shall not kill†, Euthanasia is exactly this. Objectors would point to Jesus’ use of healing, he helped the sick rather than killing them. This example that Jesus showed suggests that palliative care is a far more Christian approach to the issue of death. One fundamental belief in Christianity is that humans are made in God’s image. Because of this human life has great value as it is sharing in God’s own life. To judge a human life as not worthwhile is failing to recognise God’s creation. Specifically the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is entirely against Euthanasia arguing any intentional act that brings about death is the same as murder. This said extreme measures do not need to be taken to keep one alive, nature and God will decide when someones time has come. Pope John Paul II said that â€Å"Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God†[8]. However the church does recognise that drugs administered to a patient in order to relieve them of pain may hasten their death and this is morally acceptable as the primary intention is to alleviate the patient’s suffering. This is appealing to the doctrine of double effect which stipulates that if the primary intention is moral then the consequences of that action are irrelevant. This doctrine is widely criticised, described by Elizabeth Anscombe as â€Å"a sin in disguise†. It has been compared to claiming to not be responsible for the death of a friend if one shoots a bullet to kill a mosquito perched on his throat. Similarly the church recognises that extraordinary means in order to prevent death should not always be taken. If a young person has a long life ahead of them then they may have serious surgery but a very old person with little time left may reject such treatments. However many liberal Christians would have an alternative view. At Jesus’ sermon on the mount IN Matthew Christians are taught to be loving and allowing someone to live in pain and suffering does not reflect this teaching. In Genesis 1:28 it says that humans were given dominion over all living things by God, therefore our own lives. Furthermore free will was given to humans and surely then Christians should be allowed to exercise this free will in whichever way they please. Contrastingly to the teachings of Christian leaders 80% of Anglicans and 73% of Roman Catholics are in favour of the legalisation of euthanasia[9]. The Golden Rule of Jesus is â€Å"always treat others as you would like them to treat you†(Matthew 7:12) Doctors as a result of being aware of the implications of having a terminal illness have highest suicide rate of any group. Furthermore as Dr. Michael Irwin, former Medical Director of the united nations stated publicly â€Å"Many Physicians and nurses have private arrangements that they will hasten each other’s deaths should they ever be unfortunate enough to resemble the condition of some of their patients†[10]. Legalising Euthanasia will enable doctors to follow the Golden Rule and treat others how they would like to be treated themselves. The church actually regards refusal of extreme treatment in the face of death as morally acceptable and whilst this is not strictly euthanasia it does show an understanding of the human condition in the face of death. It is feared that euthanasia as a whole devalues disabled people’s lives and suggests that their lives are not worth living. By downgrading their lives while they’re alive we risk encouraging euthanasia. This is a very dangerous mentality to foster as many disabled people enjoy their lives regardless of any difficulties they may have. Those opposed to euthanasia often argue that misguided people could be led into euthanasia when in reality it is against their best interests. If the diagnosis of the illness is wrong and it is either not terminal or not as aggressive as claimed a patient could have priceless time taken away from them. In reality euthanasia does not devalue human life or the life of the particular patient, it is in reality having immense respect for their final wish of not wanting to endure their remaining time on earth. One medical issue that UK doctors would encounter should euthanasia be legalised would be the fact that it violates the very basis of medical ethics, which in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics is â€Å"A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception†[11]. It is thought that requesting doctors to compromise this promise would irreversibly fracture doctor patient relations. Doctors could become disillusioned by the increase in deaths and lack compassion dealing with elderly, disabled and terminally ill patients. Furthermore patients would become distrustful of health professionals believing that their doctors would rather have them terminated than have to look after them. Evidence counts against this concern as when 9 European countries were surveyed to discover which peoples invested most trust in their doctors it was the Netherlands that came out on top. Discussion of euthanasia in countries where euthanasia is legal is open, transparent, honest and mature. Palliative care is seen as the most obvious route for those opposed to euthanasia to seek painless deaths for patients with a terminal diagnosis. It is argued that the UK government should achive top level palliative care for the entire country before assisted suicide is even considered. Sometimes calls for euthanasia are in reality a veiled plea for help and should be addressed by palliative care specialists rather than assistance in this request. However must palliative care and assisted suicide be in conflict? There is a small group for whom palliative care is ineffective and should be given the final choice of euthanasia. Funding and improvement would continue in palliative care regardless of the certain choice some may take to die. Both options are driven predominantly by the respect for a patients autonomy and having compassion. Opponents to Euthanasia argue that it puts those most vulnerable in our society, the elderly, disabled and terminally ill in a terrible position where they would be made to feel like a burden. As population grows in the coming years inevitably there will be a greater demand on the health services and it will be these people who are targeted and pressured to have themselves terminated for the greater good. There is also the fear that family members of a patient with selfish intentions may coerce them into euthanasia in order to gain inheritance. Now disability groups such as â€Å"Not Dead Yet UK† (NDYUK) has fought back calls for legalised euthanasia calling upon MPs to sign the â€Å"Resistance Charter 2010† declaring that they are in support of palliative care and independent living services and maintain legal protecting for the terminally ill and disabled. However all these concerns have been considered thoroughly and comprehensively by the many bodies attempting to legalise voluntary euthanasia in the UK including Dignity in Dying, EXIT and various other organisations. There would be extensive guidelines and checks ensuring that the patient in question is fully sure of their decision and is of sound mind. In reality the legalisation of euthanasia would lead to far less assisted suicide as it becomes an open and easily discussible subject. In Holland where assisted suicide is legal, rates of non-voluntary euthanasia fell from 0. 8% (1000) of all deaths to 0. 4% (550) of all deaths in 2005. Conclusion As it stands the law in the UK is ambiguous when it comes to Euthanasia and there is a glaring lack of clarity. The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, recently stated that intentions will be taken into consideration when euthanasia takes place. If the motivation for the act is compassion and it is not in the public’s interest to prosecute those who commit voluntary euthanasia may go unpunished. In any case, the laws should be updated and clarified in order to eradicate any confusion over the matter. I believe that voluntary euthanasia should be legalised in the UK. Having volunteered in a top hospice for 2 years I witnessed first hand those with terminal illnesses. The level of care in such places is outstanding and very few people are unhappy there. However there is no substitute for death when that is what a patient wishes for. No drug or expert care can diminish the feelings of one who knows that they want to die. I feel that if laws were to be passed on euthanasia then they would be aptly scrutinised in order to ensure that no injustice was done. Whilst opponents to legislation believe that legalising euthanasia is legalising murder, this point holds little water as those who break the guidelines of voluntary euthanasia will be dealt with just as any other criminal would. The vast support for euthanasia cannot be ignored but neither can the concerns of those against it. There are objections for a variety of reasons religious, moral and pragmatic. However I feel evidence from other states whom have legalised voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is sufficient in showing that in reality palliative care would continue to improve, disabled people will still be cared for, the doctor patient relationship would only strengthen, and much of religious teachings fit with the caring nature of voluntary euthanasia.

Write Critique Essay Samples

Write Critique Essay SamplesWriting an essay is a really fun and rewarding experience. The thing that makes this even more enjoyable is writing critique essays. These critique essays can get you extra credit and make you a master of your own subject, or it can just be an excuse to take a stab at something you've always wanted to write but never had the time or inspiration to put it down on paper.There are lots of resources that provide critique essay samples. Some of them are really well known, like the Harvard Review and the New York Review of Books. But there are also a number of 'less well known' ones. These include some of the schools you would find in the library of your college, small newspaper articles from around the country, and even the back pages of the newspaper.The Internet provides a good critique essay sample if you have a computer with a scanner or if you just have access to the Internet, because it provides free access to a lot of different types of document. You can get information on books and articles, your friends' resumes, school reports, even websites and discussion boards.Now that you know there are plenty of critique essay samples out there, what do you do with all of those to use for your own essay? Well, one great way to use them is to go online and use 'edit your own' to see how many different ways you can 'edit' your own essay. If you want, you can try to find some critique essay samples that are similar to your own, because they are often used as guides for many writers.Sometimes you can even find a student's essay that is copied straight from a book that he was reading about the same or a certain topic that he was working on. This is a great way to get a better idea of what you need to write, and it gives you a chance to practice doing things right so that you don't fall back on the same mistakes over andover again. When writing, practice and do not get discouraged because as you will soon discover, you will not always have the be st sample.You should always be prepared to change things when you are writing, especially if you're using something that you read and you want to add something to it. When you are writing a critique essay, a lot of times you will find yourself getting ideas from your textbook. So be prepared for that.So now that you know that there are plenty of critique essay samples available, what do you do with them? It's a good idea to practice editing your own so that you know how to make it a bit better.