Assisted suicide should be legalized
Debate Rounds (3)
(1)Assisted suicide is "Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician."
Round 1: is accepting the debate.
Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals
Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points
The first thing I would like to do is give an example of this from personal experience before I build my case and establish my points. I have personal experience from this myself because of my grandmother. She is deathly ill at this point. She has lung cancer, fluid is constantly filling in her lungs, and she is at the point of getting Alzheimer's disease. As each day progresses they are constantly finding something new wrong with her. When we visit our family must sit there and listen to her screams of pain because of the illnesses that plague her. She is a Christian woman(not relevant to debate), and has told me time and time again that her wish is to die so that she can meet Jesus. She wishes to die and openly acknowledges this with full presence of mind, and she does this because she believes death a more viable choice than suffering. Where as I do not believe in Christianity, I do believe in the pain that she suffers. I also believe it should be her right to choose death.
(1) This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering.
(2) Suicide is already not illegal
(3) This is an act of kindness or moral act
(4) Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice
The first thing I would like to state is that this by no means will allow doctors or nurses the choice to end another persons life. This will be and shall be determined by the person(if they are in sound mind), or the family of the person. In a way this is already happening with families having the right to pull the plug on on someone. The only difference is they are not physically killing the person, they are passively allowing the person to die. Which is one in the same because they are doing so with the intent of killing the person. There will be regulation to this, and it will be tied in with power of attorney in case the person in question is not of sound mind.
Suicide is already not illegal. This speaks for itself. People may consider it immoral or cowardly but no where in the law does it state someone can not kill themselves. Historically this was the case, even up to the late 1980's. However in the early 1900's only two states listed suicide as a crime and since then has been removed. In fact Vermont has already legalized assisted suicide, and this should extend throughout the rest of the states.
We can safely say this is a moral act. As I have previously shown, anyone can commit suicide and it is not against any legal regulation. So if this is occurring commonly already, without any legal repercussion should a person who is an pain in suffering not have a say to end their own life. The most logical explanation is yes, and in fact it should be a right afforded to anyone who is suffering severe pain.
This will just build off of the previous points. We as a nation have been so advent on awarding people personal rights. We have did this with abortion as well. If a persons body is their on, and it already perfectly legal to do so(I do not even have to make a case for legality) to do so why then can they not choose death.
This is a verily easy topic to support. We have already discussed how the right to chose death will be the persons choice alone, or in some cases the families if they are not in sound mind. I have also shown that it is perfectly legal, morally acceptable, and their right as a person to be able to choose death instead of suffering. The most logical and rational conclusion is to support this and help end needless suffering that is forced upon so many who do not wish it.
I hand the floor back to my adversary.
Barbara was a 64 year old suffering from lung cancer in the state of Oregon. She was on Medicare and she asked the state for to lowered the cost for medicine that she thought she was going to get. Instead of the $4,000 a mouth drug plan her doctor prescribed to her, she was given drugs for assisted suicide that costs around $50. Wagner went on ABCNews and told her story saying that "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from a doctor and we will stand there and watch you die" (her words, not mine). Wagner got the medicine she wanted from the state and lived for another year around people she cared about.
Kate was a 85 year old women also from Oregon that according to a professional psychiatrist, Kate was cognitively impaired and that means that she could not remember recent events or people and was not mentally stable to ask if her life can be taken away. Sadly this doctor was moved away Kate and the second physician found that she was depressed and that it was treatable. Instead of being treated for her depression, she got in touch with Dr. Peter Goodwin, a medical doctor at the pro-euthanasia organization "Compassion in Dying". After battling cancer for 22 years, she died by assisted suicide on March 1998 death. One of the first assisted suicides in the state of Oregon after the passing of the new bill allowing euthanasia could have been preventable with any kind of Antidepressant and a better handling of her mental state.
Finally we get to Randy Stroup more happier story. Randy like Wagner applied and asked the State of Oregon to help him provide for the medicine he needed to combat that cancer he had. Like Wagner he was on Medicare and like Wagner was denied treatment. According to Stroup "(How could they) not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life". After his story hit the media, the state gave him the medicine he asked for and should be provided for.
All three of these people live in the same state, all three had some kind of cancer, all three needed medicine to combat their cancers and yet all three were denied from the start to the right to get health care and all three where instead given the right to die. To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want. It sounds to me like the State of Oregon is using the Right to Die as a way of avoiding the right health care and medicine. Oregon is also a very rich state and has a small population within the US and if this kind of pro-euthanasia law like this were put in into action in states like New York and California then we could see state saving millions of dollars for health care but killing people that don't really want to die and just want to get to there medicine and treatment.
Also studies have shown that 93-94% of people wanting to commit suicide suffer from a mental disorder and that most patients wanting to commit suicide have under gone extreme emotional and physical pain leading them into depression and of those patients many want to seek help to deal with their depression and they use the reason for suicide as way of crying for help. Most disorders for depression are treatable and after the patient gets that treatment they usually never talk or rarely think of suicide again. If patients deal with extreme pain and ask to commit suicide then that pain is very much treatable. According to the a February 1993 in the Anesthesiology, 70-80% to all cases of widespread cancer is manageable by oral administration and that many treatments of pain reduction are blocked or not understood by the medical staff.
In 1969, psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross outline 5 stages of the dying process, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Since that time Dr. Kubler-Ross has stated that suicide is wrong for terminal ill patients because she states that "(But assisting a Suicide is) cheating them of those lessons like taking a student out of school before final exams. That's not love, it projecting your own unfinished business". So that means when a patient is depressed then suicide is not the right answer and leading them to acceptance of that fact that they are going to die is better for that person.
My final point will be the legal and moral troubles around assisted suicide. Like in the cases of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup, states can use the euthanasia laws to not allow people medicine and override the patients right to life and health care. Because of this example, the right to death may conflict to the right of health care or to life leading to a lot of legal and ethnic troubles. Also if we allow assisted suicide to happen, the views on suicide may change from from "We respect your wishes" to "we don't care if you live or die" allowing suicide outside assisted suicide to be lawful and socially allowed. Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have. That seems to me that assisted suicide is just a easy way to avid the real problems with someone ill or healthy that want to die.
Thank you Con for building your case. I will now summarize cons main points that he presented and offer rebuttals for each.
(1) The state of Oregon along with other states has or may use doctors and physicians as a tool to end a patients life so that they will not have to pay for medication. He believes they will do this by taking advantage of their mental state.
Direct quote by con
"To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want"
(2) People who want to commit suicide most of the time are suffering from a mental disorder
(3) Morality. He believe it is immoral to take a persons life.
Direct quote from Con
"Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have"
In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of. He states that people with cancer and other types of terminal illness are undergoing depression from which they can be treated, and he wishes that they are treated for depression so that they would not wish to die. I will not argue the fact that most people suffering from types of terminal illness are undergoing depression. In fact I will say that there is a high probability they are which Con demonstrated within his sources. Con however completely missed the main issue behind assisted suicide. That is the reason why they are depressed. People suffering from terminal illness are often undergoing intense of amounts of pain. As he pointed out with cancer. You can have cancer of the lungs, breasts, or in most parts of your party. There is heart disease and other types of illnesses that lead to deterioration of the body. It is very easy to see why these people are depressed, and that is because of the amount of pain they are in. While Con is correct when he says they can be treated for depression, they can not be treated for some of the illnesses that plague them. That is why most of them are suffering from "Terminal Illness". Terminal illness is defined as "A medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured". Most of these people have disease that are incurable and are forced to suffer through the pain. Some people can be in such intense pain that they pass out, especially with bone deterioration or cancer of the lungs in their final days. When they are in that type of suffering it is a completely viable option to give them the choice to end their suffering. He then states that doctors can be controlled in order to murder people so they will not have to pay for medical costs. This could possibly happen, but will not happen with controlled regulation. In fact it will decrease it from happening. As con stated there have already been cases in which this occurred. From the intense overview this will receive when it is regulated, it will be almost impossible to commit this. If a doctor even tried to do this and was caught, he would be tried for premeditated murder. At that point he will risk life in prison, death, revocation of his license, and a stain on his character as a person. Just out of the sheer consequences that come from this, a deterrent is already in place without regulations. Regulations will just help build the deterrent even more.
The context in which con is making this point is irrelevant to the debate but I will combat it anyway. As I have already tackled previously patients who are suffering from terminal illness are in that state because of pain and other reasons. Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant. It is directly relevant to people who are in trauma or are suffering from severe illness. Where as it may extend to more people in a later date. As i have also stated, suicide itself is not a criminal act. So to bring up the point that most people who are not ill and that still see fit to commit suicide are depressed, is irrelevant to this topic.
Con questions the morality behind this. Seeing as how this is completely subjective I will argue as so. Con thinks that extended someone the curiosity of living longer is the moral act. He ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in. Where as morality is dependent upon different a persons viewpoint, I propose that it should be that person right, or the family right to say whether or not it is a moral act to end their suffering.
I have previously shown in my R2 argument and continued to show throughout this rounds argument why assisted suicide should be legalized. Suicide is already permitted and not considered a crime, so law is not being broken. It should also be a persons or their families right to determine if it is moral to end their suffering. I have also shown how this is already happening with the option of pulling the plug in some cases. Where as this is a passive cases of assisted suicide and they are not actually ending the persons life, it is still with the intention of kill them to help them ease their pain. The most important point is that everyone should have their right to their own body and be able to choose death or life. If they do not wish to be in pain, we have no right to put them through needless suffering if they so desire. I believe and have shown why this is moral, and helping ease a persons suffering. This is already starting to be pushed and is already in legal in some states, I ask that you take the steps to make it happen in the rest. Thank you
First pro point: This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering.
As I have shown in my argument, with the stories I have shared in this debate. Doctors are usually not given the right to allow assisted of a terminal Ill patient, but it can be in the state's government to right to allow the assisted suicide if such an euthanasia law is put in placed. Also, as It said with my source from nrlc.org, more then 93-94% of the people that are terminal Ill are not in the mental mind to decide to take there life away. So if the person has the right to choice to end their suffering they are doing it in a bad frame of mind and if the pain was reduced and the patient was in sound mind then you can ask them whether or not to die. My source from nrlc.org also said that when pain is reduced then the patient would choice not to commit assisted suicide but to die naturally.
Second pro point: Suicide is already not illegal
That is true. That is because it is impossible to convict someone to a crime when the person that commits the crime is already died. This is not related at all to the topic at hand and is really not needed to be highlighted apon.
Third pro point: This is an act of kindness or moral act
So with that logic that means it is morally right to allow the state to allow someone that is suffering from a terminal illness rather then keeping them alive, reducing their pain and allowing them to die naturally like the majority of he population around the world do everyday. This point is not based around logic but is more of a vision of a reality that soft and flowery. Everything that can be considered living suffers. Animals suffer, planet suffer and even the small skin cell suffers and that leads to the living substance to naturally death. As this point seems to put it, we should allow to people to die unnaturally to avoid the thing that connects humans to humans and living substance to living substance that perfectcally naturally, pain and suffering.
Fourth and finally point from pro: Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice
It is true that that everyone humans body is their own, I can not disagree with that. But with with my source from nrlc.org, it shows that most terminal Ill patients suffer from a mental disorder and depression caused by the illness and are not in the right mind state understand the choice at hand or taking their own life away. Studies from my source in nrlc.org also highlight that that if the right methods and techniques where used, the patient would rather choice dying naturally then dying from assisted suicide. I also highlight the stories of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup and highlight how the state of Oregon tried to push Wanger and Stroup to allow themselves to be assisted suicide rather then give them treatment they needed and how the state ether than using the advise from trained doctors pushed Cheney to death when if she was treated for depression she would have choice to die naturally.
Now I shall defend myself and my views
Quotes from pro: "In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of"
Assisted suicide was taken advantage. Read my statements about what happened in Oregon and see that it was taken advantage of and that it wasn't just a theory but real life telling of how and why assisted suicide was taken advantage of. Pro missed the point that the stories I used was to highlight what happens when euthanasia law whether regulated or not can be used by the state as a way of backing out of health care payments. Put this forward a clear as possible and yet the pro still does not see the harm these laws have done and what these laws may do if passed in poorer or more populated states.
Quote from pro: "Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant"
Why is the mental state of the patient irrelevant to this debate. Only a small number (6-7%) of terminal ill patients have the mental power to decide on whether or not to allow themselves to be assisted suicide and hidi png out which takes time and money that could be used on reducing the pain allowing a less painfully and more naturally path to death.
Quote from pro: "(Con) ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in."
As I said before, as humans we all suffer. Yes terminal Ill patients suffer a lot of pain and I also hate to see people suffer but it is not something you can avoid or should avoid. Suffering is a naturally thing and all humans feel and not just according to me but to trained medical professtionals like Dr. Kubler-Ross understand that suffering and feeling depressed about it is part of dealing with death. We can reduce the suffering of the terminal Ill patient to allow themselves to die naturally.
I end here but telling the viewers to lot over all the results and to see who follower the guidelines of the debate better and to see which one of used more sounded logic and better sources. Mikel, thank you for allowing me to think long and hard about this topic, it is an important topic and I thank you for bringing it up. Now viewers, I hope that you read all the arguments and rebuttals and pick the side you think should win. Do not feel pressured, but follow with your brain and fell with your heart. Thank you!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: While it would have to be carefully monitored and thoroughly regulated, Con did not provide adequate reason for why patients should not be allowed assisted suicide. There is no good moral reason to force them to suffer, and not all pain can be removed, at least not with any semblance of conscious life remaining. Cons main argument was the three stories of terminal patients. Two of whom declined the program, and one who sought it out and made use of it. I do not see the problem with this at all, as the program is meant to give people that very choice. As for the state of mind, it is completely feasible that these patients are depressed because of the pain they are in, and the fact that they will die soon. Forcing them to live longer, and die in what would probably be excruciating pain is not okay.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.