8/3/2019 Critical Appraisal. Mohammad AlMekhyal

1/2

Critical appraisal of the article Can doctors say enough?

The article1being addressed in this critique is an example for a good piece of writing addressing

ethical issues. While there are certain points that I will try to show their weakness2 & 5

, it is indeed

acceptable for a student level of writing. The logical structure4

of the article1

consists of an

introduction, list of ethical issues the article is trying to tackle in the case presented, and a

conclusion stating the overall position of authors. Each ethical issue along with the evidence for the

writers opinion is presented separately for sake clarity and simplicity. While the introduction is

concise, it does not clearly tell the authors stance toward the case addressed which will leave the

reader to be puzzled till he figures it out while reading other parts of the article. The strength of

evidence presented for each issues of the case varies greatly. For instance, the evidence regarding

Patient autonomy1

issue is way weaker than, for example, the evidence for Medical futility1

part.

The order of issues and their evidence seems to follow a stronger to weaker order. It is important

to note that this strength is relative, and most people wouldnt agree on this order3 & 5

. The evidence

presented in the article is not always as appealing as it should be and sometimes it seems to

contradict the authorsposition! For example, in legal ramifications for withdrawing life-sustaining

treatment part, the writers, in fact, try to show evidence for both opposite opinions but the

evidence against his position is clearly stronger and his evidence is almost neglectful. One notable

comment on the authors evidence is that the evidences are not always fulfilling and doesnt address

the issue completely. On contrary, the authors refer to a source in which may or may not contain the

convincing evidence. The authors seem to put in mind different3

views on the case they are

mentioning. They try to rebut evidences of different opinions by comparing them side by side and

showing that their evidences are more logical or ethical. The best part where this seems evident is

Justice and the allocation of limited resources1, and as mentioned above the authors not always

refute opposite opinions appropriately. The article contains a long list of references4

for such a short

article. The authors seemed to be careful with their resources and they referred to each source

when feasible. Neither the evidence nor the sources they have been extracted from is outdated. Theconclusion is the part where the whole article is summarized. The authors clearly states their

position and call for action or emphasize on the importance of their position. What is unusual is that

the authors present a new piece of evidence1

in the conclusion that should have been places in a

separate part. Finally, though the article may contain certain points of weakness, it is competent and

proficiently written.

References:

8/3/2019 Critical Appraisal. Mohammad AlMekhyal

2/2

1- DeMaio,, Alison, and Nathan Clendenen. "Can doctors say enough? " RCSI SMJ 2010/2011 (2011). RCSI, 2011.Web. 1 Dec. 2011. .

2- Kelly, Helen. "Critical Skills III." Lecture.3- Kelly, Helen. "Critical Skills II." Lecture.4- Kelly, Helen. "M 6.17 Academic Writing." Lecture.5- "Critical Thinking." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. .