Should teens have the right to see a doctor in private.
There has recently been a controversy between Parents teens seeing a doctor without Parents acknowledgement. In her article Susie O’Brien puts up a forward a persuasive argument, with valid points, state ting with common-sense at times and a dominate amount of emotive language hence appeal to family. In the introduction of the article, O’Brien uses emotive language by using words such as “we” and “our” to draw the reader in this technique is used to make the reader feel involved and imagine their own children in this situation. Hence using emotive language also helps bring it straight to a personal perspective. Earlier in the article, she describe
Parents, who dislike the confidentiality between their teen and the doctor, are the people who are against younger patience approaching the doctors without family consent. O’Brien attempts to take these people on side by taking a self-deprecating tone, calling herself a “over protective un qualified doctor.” Therefore using this statement above it provides support for her case. In saying this O’Brien begins to bring in a more seductive argument to persuade the readers, by using appeal to authority “Professional Doctors” and “Victorian doctors illustrates.” This provides that O’Brien has done her research towards this topic; more over persuade the reader to agree with the writers side by using a higher qualified authority. O’Brien pushes on to continue making a comparison between two scenarios “The parents of a suicidal 13-year-old would no doubt be told, because of the seriousness of the issue, and because children at that age can’t consent to medical care.” And “a 16-year-old who wants to go on the pill is able to do so without her parents’ consent or knowledge. Sexually active teens are hardly likely to stop just because they can’t go on the pill: they’ll just have unprotected sex instead.” By doing this she has made a valid point, to show the reader what...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document