The Instigator
Alduin
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
VogonPoet
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Does government have the right to prevent people who are terminally ill from trying new drugs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
VogonPoet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 61454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Alduin

Con

Does government get to say which drugs you can and can't take while you're on your deathbed?
VogonPoet

Pro

Yes, the government does have the right to prevent people who are terminally ill from trying new drugs. I am not saying that they should in all cases, or even the majority, but there are cases where the government needs to step in and say that something is not ethical. If the government did not have this ability, drugs that have little to no proven effect or even are harmful could be given to vulnerable people who don't know their efficacy or safety. I would say that the government does not just have the right to stop this from happening, but the responsibility to do so.
Debate Round No. 1
Alduin

Con

If you are dying of cancer, why should it matter what you take? This comes back to other people (government in this case), owning your body. What if the person on their deathbed wants to try the new experimental drug that hasn't been evaluated by the FDA? If you have 8 weeks to live, shouldn't it be the persons choice, and not a politician who could be thousands of miles away sitting at a desk?
VogonPoet

Pro

It should matter what you take for a number of reasons. The new drug could reduce your life expectancy even more, reduce you standard of living for what time you have left, or you could take the drug away from someone else who needs it more. As I said before, in most cases experimental drugs should be used, but we should not just let it be a free for all on that basis. The government has the right to say if something is just too risky, or is not best used in a certain case.
Debate Round No. 2
Alduin

Con

Reduce your life expectancy? They are terminally ill! And you can't confirm that a unevaluated drug would harm the person unless he or she took the pill. And you can't take the drug away from somebody who needs it more because it's not been approved by the FDA, so nobody in a hospital is going to be reciving it. Why in the world should somebody deny medicine to somebody on their deathbed?
VogonPoet

Pro

I would like to clarify my point for the closing statement. The question is "Does government have the right to prevent people who are terminally ill from trying new drugs?". To prove this statement right, all I have to do is show where the government does have the moral right to prevent a terminally ill patient from trying new drugs.

Desperate terminally ill patients could be lured by false hope into a risky premature treatment. They could spend many thousands of dollars on the treatment, spend the last months of their lives away from palliative care and loved ones experiencing terrible side effects on a drug that is just as likely to kill them as cure them. Only 5% of all cancer drugs that enter clinical testing are approved for patient use. That means 95% don't work, and are potentially dangerous. (Statistic from http://www.sph.umich.edu...)

Another problem. If terminally ill patients are allowed to use experimental drugs, they are less likely to participate in randomized clinical trials (because none would want to be in the control group). The reason the FDA takes so long to approve drugs is because they require extensive clinical trials to be conducted. Without terminally ill people being involved in these randomized trials, drugs that have the potential to save lives in the general public (not just terminally ill people) would not be approved.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by VogonPoet 2 years ago
VogonPoet
Thanks for a great debate Alduin. I am happy to continue debating in the comments if you want to.
Posted by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
Your "help" isn't needed here.
Posted by Terridax 2 years ago
Terridax
How would it benefit me in any way to shut up? I was trying to help you so that your debate would be set up correctly and so that you wouldn't get sniped by somebody taking advantage of you no being specific enough in your terminology.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
As long as liberalism is alive and well in our government they will take rights away from " WE THE PEOPLE".For every " right " government votes themselves, the people lose that same right.Every tax that government votes for itself, someone will lose that same right for self-determination, which is simply declaration of independence.Now where did I hear that before?
Posted by VogonPoet 2 years ago
VogonPoet
Hello. I just accepted the debate Alduin, and debated assuming you where asking if they had the moral right to stop terminally ill people from trying new drugs, rather than the legal right.
Posted by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
And it would beefit you to STFU!
Posted by Terridax 2 years ago
Terridax
It would likely be wise of you to post which side you're on regarding the topic, as this is a debate site, not a site to just ask random questions.

It will also beefit you to define 'right', as it could be either a moral right or a legal right. If you don't define it saying you mean a moral right, somebody can come in and say that they have the legal right, because they make the laws, and that'd be an almost guaranteed win for your opponent.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
AlduinVogonPoetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP not satisfied, much less defined. Con started with nothing, Pro at least brought something to the discussion.
Vote Placed by debatergorl 2 years ago
debatergorl
AlduinVogonPoetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good foundations for their arguments. I would have liked to have seen both sides expand a little more. Pro did at least cite one source and had a little bit better grammar than Con, so that is where the points will go.