The Instigator
lexi_the_best
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBR
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

should California legalize physician assisted suicide

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
TBR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 70688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

lexi_the_best

Con

open debate first round is for acceptance .Debate starts next round
TBR

Pro

Looking forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
lexi_the_best

Con

California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states "This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life."This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...
Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.
TBR

Pro

“Dying is not a crime.” R13; Jack Kevorkian

Body autonomy is the ultimate point in this argument, the concept that each individual has control over their own body and that inviolability overrides any external individual’s morals or feeling about how you may use your own body.

The likely sources of interference with an individual’s right to body autonomy in the case of euthanasia are;

1) Medical professionals
2) The state (government)
3) Religion – Moral
4) Family

I will make efforts to address each with some level of detail.

Medical Professionals.
"First do no harm." Well, that seems somewhat clear, and most of us have used this statement attached to the medical world, often with “Hippocratic Oath” in the same sentence. There is, however, some issues with the statement. It is nowhere IN the Hippocratic Oath! [1][2]. The oath does contain some pertinent passages to our topic. “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” What a great statement. It is warning the young healer that the application of his skills should have limits apart from his own skills. That “therapeutic nihilism” [3] or skepticism of any and all options should be avoided.

But wait, there’s more!

"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."

“... Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”

“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.”

I quote almost the entirety of the modern oath above, as it is a wonderful statement. “…warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.” “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility…”

There’s a lot of good stuff in there. Even some that may be beneficial to con in this debate. On balance, the oath is a spectacular statement for how physicians should approach their patients. One thing is clear, the oath is speaks to balance in treatment, not rigidity. It does not insist that physicians treat a patient past his consent. It asks the doctor to be humble and receptive to his patient, to the patient’s problems outside of the medical issues, and that may include dropping the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

The medical professional has no obligation to violate the patient’s body autonomy.

The State
I wonder about the order of my points, and may reorder them later. The State is the only current absolute bar to euthanasia, and therefor may deserve higher placement on the list.

The question of where the state gains the power to limit an individual’s right to body autonomy as it relates to euthanasia is questionable. Where, potentially, the individual gains the right is less murky. It’s the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution [4]. The current interpretation of the amendment as it related to body autonomy has not extended to euthanasia yet. “The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences.” [4], but is clearly on its way to being tested.

Government, apart from doctorial regimes, must reflect the will of the governed. Provided any proposed law does not violate the constitutional restraint, government must do the bidding of the people. In this, the message is clear. 7 in 10 Americans back Euthanasia [5].

There is nothing restraining the government from extending body autonomy to include euthanasia.

Religion – Moral.
This section of objection has little gray area as it relates to the question. With few exceptions, all major religions reject euthanasia, and body autonomy in other subjects – notably abortion.

That there is little decent from a common opinion does not mean that this section is without need for discussion. There is no doubt that in our country religion should not interfere with legality. That, however, is naïve. The collective morals of the society inform the laws of the same, there for a discussion of morals is a cornerstone of the debate, and since we are talking the United States, Christianity plays a major role in the debate.

Let’s start with the owner’s manual for the faith, the Bible. Similarly to the misunderstanding about the Hypocritical Oath, the bible has nothing directly to say about euthanasia [6]. This passage from the bible rang in my head, driving me to search - "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass” - (Job 14:5). Well, as I am often told, the lord works in mysterious ways, and I can’t possibly see how his will is usurped through euthanasia. There seems nothing that says that the load can’t work through the individual, or through a physician, or a family member, in determining the number of days. One could point to “thou shalt not kill", but that must be wrong. Well, it is commonly accepted to be “murder” not kill [7]. The bible sure wouldn’t say “kill” as it seems to be the topic of so much material in the book. No, murder is the right word. Since to be murder, a killing must be illegal, that’s what makes it murder!



Since the material in the bible related to the subject is so thin, it must religion working outside the bounds of the Bible. If that’s the case, I don’t see how Christianity can deny euthanasia as a body autonomy right.

Family
An individual’s family is a critical in this debate. They are critical because in many cases, medical decisions must fall to the family. In the case of Schiavo in Florida we saw an interesting clash of family. The question about the will of the patient was murky to her parents, and crystal clear to her husband. A Living will would have cleared up the mess about her intent, and made clear her choice.

I think I will save more on family for another round.


Hippocratic Oath Modern
[1] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...

Hippocratic Oath Greek
[2] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...

Therapeutic Nihilism
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Personal Autonomy – legal
[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Poll - Euthanasia
[5] http://www.gallup.com...

The Bible and euthanasia
[6] https://carm.org...

Bible "thou shalt not murder"
[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lexi_the_best

Con

I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable. The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illness
Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%.Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs. In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic.
Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.
But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves. What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created.
Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nation
Section 443.2 of SB 128 states
"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request."
There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake.
http://www.drugs.com...
http://www.drugfreeworld.org...
Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.
Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion.
I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice. Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide.
TBR

Pro

The response from con sounds very personal. If you are struggling the concept of euthanasia intellectual, then read on. If however you are struggling with this because of a family member, or close friend suffering with a terminal illness, I suggest you simply stop now. If the case is the latter, I offer my condolences.






Rebuttal

“Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with.”

While this statement is unquestionably true, it changes very little about the debate. The death of a terminally ill patient is coming regardless of allowing them a choice on how and when they die.


"Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye."

Well, often it is a perfect chance to “say goodbye”. To say goodbye while still in control of their own body’s. In control of their minds. Still in control.


"I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable."

I am providing logical and moral reasoning for an individual to choose to end their life’s on their own terms. Individuals have a moral right to body autonomy. A moral right to make choices about their own body. Externaly interested parties can encourage, attempt to persuade the individual, but they have no moral right to override the terminally ill patient’s decision.


"The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illness

I know of no such drug, and you have provided no information about it. If, however, someone is attempting to craft a specific drug, that sounds like a good idea.


Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%."

The leading cause of suicide is depression


"Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs."

I see no connection between this and the question.


"In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic.

Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.
But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves."

Telling someone they have a right to do what is already a right is a little counterintuitive. I am suggesting that body autonomy is a right.


"What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created."

You are conflating two issues. Teen suicide and euthanasia. If there were a relation then it would be worth talking about, but I can find no causal relationship, and you have provided none.


Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nation

OK. Stir the nation. However, as I referenced above, 7 in 10 Americans support euthanasia [5]. 70% is a clear mandate.


Section 443.2 of SB 128 states
"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request."

I have no issue with this wording.


"There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake."

I see no evidence for this assertion.


"Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.
Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion."

To be frank, the only appeal to emotion I have seen is from you.


"I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice."

I am arguing for choice. The patient’s choice over what happens to his own body.


"Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide."

How you feel is clear. What you may like may not be what the terminal patient wants, and as I have discussed. It is their choice, not your choice.

Conclusion
The to control their bodys is the issue in this debate. While emotions run high for intrested family and firends, their wishes simply cannot overide the will and wish of the patient. The choices they make are for their own reasons, and not to be dismissed because of anothers selfish desires.

Vote pro.


Poll - Euthanasia
[5] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
Yes! yes yes yes!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by beanall 2 years ago
beanall
lexi_the_bestTBRTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con created the argument that teens may use this unreasonably due to depression. I did like that argument and overall agree with her, however, I much preferred the overall format of Pro and his arguments were supported with more fact. Unfortunately I will have to give the slight edge to Pro. Although Pro won the debate, I do still agree with Con.