Oregon's 'Death with Dignity' act should be legal among other states
Debate Rounds (4)
Please avoid rambling on to make your points clear.
"The Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. However, we use 'physician-assisted suicide' because that terminology is used in medical literature to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Death with Dignity Act legalizes PAS [physician-assisted suicide], but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another life.
"Death with Dignity" re-establishes the Fourteenth Amendment in the constitution.
As American citizens we are granted certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken away from us. Section 1 under the Fourteenth Amendment states that "No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Therefore if you are against "Death with Dignity" you are stating that as a citizen of the United States, the government enforces when you can or cannot die. Opposing this act shall be constructed as unconstitutional by removing our civil liberties. This act does not in any way force the patients to suicide, but rather gives them an option of dying with dignity without pain or suffering.
"Death with Dignity" allows patients the right to choose
As a patient we are granted the right to deny any type of treatment or medical care. As this act is self-inflicted, patients have a "way out" from letting their bodies tear themselves apart. A good example of this would be cancer. Suppose that you have just been informed that your cancer is untreatable and you have only 6 months to live. During the last few months of your life your body will slowly deteriorate and one would be dealt with much severe pain. This act is a way for patients to live their lives while they still physically can and be able to dignify their end. We all die, but there is always a limit as to what physicians and family members can do once a terminally-ill diagnosis is made. It is morally and ethically wrong to let our government dictate our "end of life" matters. This film (Documentary) is a great example of the points I"m covering. https://www.youtube.com...
Before one argues that there are outside factors that contribute to the "assisted suicide", we must look at the eligibility requirements. To use the Oregon or Washington law, patients must be 18 years old or older, residents of Oregon or Washington diagnosed with a terminal illness with six months or less to live. The patients must be free of any mental health condition, such as depression, which impairs their ability to make health care decisions. Two physicians must examine the patient and confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. Both physicians must determine the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions. And at any time may the patient can decide not to go through the process.
I strongly urge voters to grant this act among other states so we may choose to end the pain and suffering of these patients in a dignified matter.
hmmm, i guess it shoudn't because its wrong?
let me guess, you think this is okay because it lowers the population and gives people rights and bla bla bla. ok, its a controversy already with abortion, why do we need to worry about some other one about killing more people geez
"Bla bla bla." Yes, I was thinking the same.
ohhh, i see now. well probably the reason why is so that the goverenment doesn't want to give people too much power on how they liv or not. the economy is jacked up, live with it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no argument in round 2, and failed to present a challenge to Pros position overall.
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.