Amrita1

Amrita Neupane
Tiffany Rousculp
English 1010
Formal Rhetorical Analysis

Various socio-political issues are comment upon by several

contributors from different perspectives in the Room for Debate
section of the New York Times. One of the issue, published on February
17 2016, is debate about the murder in the overdose deaths of
patients for overprescribed drugs. The Room for Debate topic,
Prosecuting Doctors in Prescription Drug Overdose Deaths asks for
contributors to respond to question should doctor be prosecuted for
prescribing overdoses of drug?. It follows up with another question
whether prosecuting doctors whose patients die of prescription
medication overdoses an effective way to combat opioid addiction.
The three respondent to this debate come from both professional
and personal contexts. Their background effect which side they are on
in the debate. In this rhetorical analysis, I will be looking over the
connections between background of each respondent and their
argument. I will also analyze argument, style they write, tone they use
and strategies.

Amrita2

The first respondent of the debate is Alan G Santos, a former

associate deputy assistant administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administrations Office of Diversion Control. In the article he wrote
The fewer Bad Doctors May Need to Be Prosecuted for Drug
Overdoses Deaths Santos describes about opioid addiction in our
country and a public health crisis, and how it should be treated. First
Santos starts writing doctors should be charge for murder if proof of
doctor found overprescribing opioid. He aims on how opioid overdoes.
After that he notes the statistic of deaths of 28647 due to overdoses in
United Sates in 2014 from the Centers for Disease Control. then, he
states that the most of the doctors follow the law and take
responsibilities while prescribing medication for their patient. He also
records that everyone should take drug addiction a real public health
crisis. He believes to make the health safety of United states ever
official Law needs to do anything. At last, he suggested that the
doctors should be sentence if evidence is found about the doctors
imply in patient death.
Previously talking about Santoss argument, lets talk about his
background. He was an administrator of Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and have an experience of controlled substances
and opioid abuse. After that short background and get to the overall

Amrita3

question of the article whether prosecute doctor for over prescribing

or not?, Santos explanation is acute and compulsion.
In some part of Santos debate prosecution of doctors, Santos is
bringing a strong tone like as a leader but at the same time he is he
could not give much opinion into the debate. he is trying to place very
professional tone. In general, his tone is like serious type.
The second respondent of debate is Andrew Kolodny, the
executive director of physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing,
submitted an article titled Crooked Doctors Are Not Fueling the Opioid
Epidemic. He is also a chief medical officer of phoenix House
Foundation, which is nonprofit addiction treatment agency. He started
his debate article by saying crooked doctors are not at fault it is the
well intentioned doctors who caused the crisis, the rise of
prescriptions caused death and addiction. After that he analyses the
medical community was not acting illegally but they were simply trying
to promote a new campaign of no opioid. Then, he presumes that they
were badly misloaded causing many patients to be addicted or dying of
overdose. In the conclusion, Kolodny declares that people from the
clinics may become afraid to prescribe opioids, but they are never the
answer.

Amrita4

As he is an executive director for Responsible Opioid Prescribing

his mission is to lead the way in responsible opioid prescribing
advocacy and education and has a close relationship to the subject.
Mostly, in his article he focuses on his mission.
Not like other responder of this debate, the style of Kolodny is
more personal than professional. His writing style shows his
mission/goals in education. he talks about the medical fields and
educating. It didnt mention any facts or statistics. His tone has more
emotion in the situation. He said that doctors are the drug dealer in the
white coat but in his writing we can tell that he meant it wont solve
the addiction problems.
The third respondent of the debate Prosecuting Doctors in
Prescription Drug Overdose Deaths in the Room for Debate in The
New York Times is Diane Hoffman. She is a law professor and the
director of the Law and Health Care Program at the University of
Maryland. Now, we get to know that she is from different background
than other two respondents. Her justification ends with the concern
that prosecuting doctors will leave chronic pain patients with less
treatment. She admits that doctors are in a hard situation because
they can be prosecuted for both overdosing and under-treating
patients.

Amrita5

The previous contributors were personal and professional,

whereas Hoffman is more like professional. it looks like she is in the
middle. She recognizes the need to prosecute those who overuse their
power but also shows some concern for those who dont mean to
overprescribe.
After reading the article of third respondent, we can tell that she
is two sided. She agreed that the doctors should be prosecuted for
using their profession in a wrong way, but at the same time she is also
supporting the doctors who are innocent. She also brought sensitive
tone in the medical field. As a director of Law and Health Care
program, I think she is doing right thing i.e. supporting the innocents
and prosecuting the criminal.
In conclusion, after reading all three respondent debate on
where to prosecute doctors for overprescribing or not, we get to
know that they all have different view and voice with order with their
professional or personal background. All of them are positioning their
understanding and experience in a debate to achieve what they are
trying to say.

Amrita6