Euthanasia - Class: Assisted Suicide
Debate Rounds (3)
Just simple arguments, only 500 characters.
Just to be clear. I have a lot of respect for the choices of those that are suffering.
What I want to argue for argument's sake: Is this a fair request to make of these professionals? Does it fundamentally change their role? Can doctors cope with such a request as it becomes part of their job description?
I believe there are many instances of passive acts such as stopping iife support or stopping aggressive aid to keep someone alive when basically nature has to be left to take its course. I do not see these passive acts as assisted suicide. The doctor is not ultimately responsible for the death of the patient. With such the doctor's training allows them to move on and focus on the next case - to heal someone or give someone better quality of life.
What toll and effect on a doctor if their job description is now to be told/instructed to inject someone with a lethal dose? They are now to kill someone outright? They are responsible for the death; they have intercepted nature. The term assisted is perhaps misleading no? This is an intensely private and difficult situation. There are very strong arguments for when it is the compassionate thing to do. I agree with many, many cases. However, can doctors really be asked to fight for their patients' lives and then in the very same day actively terminate someone?
Loosing someone on an operating table and then to come out and have to administer a lethal dose to someone? How many scotches go down for the doctor that night?
For later points perhaps we can talk about how/who/when the 'kill moment' is decided. How is the doctor assured this is in the best wishes/desired of the patient?
To be bombastic - what about depression? Is it a slippery slope?
If the patient's bearable existence is at stake, and they clearly have control of their faculties, and the condition in which they are in is incurable, then I believe they have a right to die.
If the person they are asking, actively or passively kills them, it was what the person wanted, so there is nothing wrong. It is like giving them a sweet, when they request the bowl full of them. It all depends on where your moral and religious viewpoints are. But according to morals, and rights, people have that right, the right to die.
And I'm pretty sure that I put 500 words, oh well.
Nayrb forfeited this round.
Those who truly want to do their best for their patients by responding to a request to help end their suffering are forbidden by law from doing so. Many surveys of British doctors have shown that some already help their patients to die & risk their professional career by doing so. Doctors are also able to give pain-killers in such high doses that people die more quickly. This is known as the 'double effect' - if the intention is to relieve suffering, but the side effect is death.
81% of the public think that a person suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to have medical help to die if that is what he or she wants (National Opinion Poll 2002).
We can now choose our partner, when to have a child, & whether to continue with an unplanned pregnancy. We have the right to accept, or refuse, medical treatment. We should have the same right to decide when & where to die. The present law is based on traditional beliefs which are no longer held by many UK citizens & should not be imposed on those who do not share them.
There, try and best that. (And don't try that whole "It'll slide into chaos!!!!!!1" argument, because assisted suicide definitively requires the patients consent and help.
Nayrb forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.