Physician Assisted Death
Debate Rounds (4)
These patients have to meet the following criteria
18 years of age or older
" Capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself
" Diagnosed with a terminal illness with only 6 months to live
The attending physician decides if the criteria have been met, but further requirements are then necessary. Some of those include:
" Two oral requests by the patient, at least 15 days apart
" A written request by the patient signed by two witnesses
" Confirmation of diagnosis and prognosis by the attending doctor and a consulting physician
" The attending and consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making health care decisions for him/herself
" Patient must be informed of feasible alternatives
" Attending physician must request the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request
" Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Health Authority, Vital Records
The physician may prescribe the medicine " cocktail" to the patient but, it is the patients choice if they want to end their life or not. The physician only gives them the chance to choose what they feel is best for themselves because it is their life, so let them decide what to do with it.
The criteria set in your rebuttal is different than the criteria set in the debate topic.
Any point you make differing from the topic is null and void do to it's differing from your own topic.
noved18 forfeited this round.
And "murder" means the killing of another person. But there is no other person killing in physician assisted suicide. The patient is the one killing themselves, making it their decision to end their life. I don't see a victim of murder pointing at the murderer and saying" you can kill me now". The physician is just there to help the patient by giving them a choice and it is there decision to partake in that choice or not.
I am entirely in favor of the ladder. The broadness of the debate is just that, broad. You are trying to bring it down to one thing while ignoring the rest of the possibilities under the definition of the actual debate topic. It's blatant and doesn't work. You can die more ways than suicide. Change the debate topic in a future debate if you want to specifically debate suicide, but this is not that debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: I was initially thinking that Con was deflecting with unfair semantics, but that wasn't the case. Con plays a clever semantics game that fits the resolution; the distinction between "death" and "suicide" is made apparent by Con, and he/she effectively argues that "death" could involve murder. The source proved vital for Con's case, as defining many 'Physician assisted death[s]' as murder gave him the win, so source points to him/her on that. Conduct goes to Con, too, for the round forfeit by Pro.
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.