Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

Final Refutations The Hippocratic Oath 1. Sadly, with this particular argument, I will concede that therapeutic nihilism is indeed not very present in today's medical community. 2. Here, Con contradicts himself in his thinking. While he does agree that "the hippocrates were hypocrites," he also states that this does not detract from the value of the modern Hippocratic Oath. The problem with this is that he immediately counters another argument of mine by saying that the Oath is unchanged. So, one could say that, by proxy, the modern Oath's value is detracted from, seeing as how the previous Oath was ignored, and the modern Oath is in effect, the original. As well, I'd also like to point out another flaw. One of Con's contentions is that PAS's should stay illegal because that would then allow a physician to break his/her Oath. This is why we've been debating this issue of the Oath in particular so heavily. However, if what Con has stated is true, and that the modern Oath remains effectively unchanged, then his overall contention that PAS violates the Oath is proved false. Abortion and surgery, two things which I argued earlier were directly not allowed according to the Oath, are both legal across the US. Of course, I'm not suggesting the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument, but what I am suggesting is that Con's argument using the Hippocratic Oath can be considered null and void. 3. Con declares that I am distorting the Oath here, as well as saying that "nothing is forced. The patient is not forced to live with it, he can kill himself independently, again, suicide legality is a whole different debate. " This is not entirely true. People that generally request PAS's either aren't able to commit suicide in the conventional manners, being bedbound and terminally ill, or, to turn Con's source from round 2 into my own, they may commit suicide in much more grisly, painful, undignified, and traumatic ways [1]. To quote this source "if you were a family member, which would be more traumatic--saying goodbye to a loved one at the hospital or coming home to see his head and brains splattered against the wall from a bullet? " So, in actuality, the terminally ill, after coming to a conclusion that death is their option, are indeed being forced to turn to a much more horriying path of suicide, or even convince another person to kill them--neither of which, I think we can agree, are desirable. So, if a physician is willing to assist, and the patient is resolved to die, than it seems that a dignified and legal route is ideal. Defense Against Con's Refutations 4 (part 1 of Con's refutations). With this, Con asserts the idea that it is impossible to make sure patients are informed by their doctors accurately, thus leading to unnecessary deaths--therefore, to avoid these deaths, PAS should remain illegal. However, while it is true that error can occur, I believe that the “what if,” situation Con has provided is not sufficient to stand against the legalization of PAS. One of the reasons for this is that, while there are physicians that are incompetent or negligent, to say that because there are bad doctors, or doctors who can make mistakes, so PAS’s should be illegal is a stretch too far. A PAS is, in the end, a medical service and procedure, and is extremely close to taking a vegetative person off of life support. And, as with all medical procedures, a patient, even though they have the right to have it (provided said procedure is legal), the patient is also responsible for his/her life, which one contention as to why PAS’s should be legal. As such, he/she must be responsible for making sure that they are informed themselves, of both the law, as well as knowledge of being able to obtain a second opinion, among other precautions. So, while error can happen, I think that people can properly safeguard against such “disastrous results. ” 5 (part 2 of Con’s refutations). Here, Con indicates that “Regardless of law, legalization of PAS all over the country will open the doors to very disturbing scenarios and deviousness from the corporate world. ” He also raises a valid point that government and insurance can have gain from PAS. The only issue I take with this argument is that it’s a mere hypothetical—not in the sense of it being a “what if,” but this argument seems rather vague to be considered an argument without much support. 6 (Con’s final contention). With this final contention, Con for some reason makes the connection that legalizing physician-assisted-suicide will cause an almost apathetic view of medicine, with our trust in medicine and cures. I find this contention to be very sensationalist. The resolution is that it would be legal for the terminally ill to bring about their own death with dignity, after being informed of all other alternatives. I don’t understand where Con connects this to less people looking for cures. PAS is tragic whatever way one looks at it—making it legal won’t make it any more socially desirable. In fact, one could even make the argument that a legalization of PAS would make support for research stronger. When people suffer so much from a fatal disease that death becomes desirable, surely many would see that as a tragedy, and champion for further research. After all, I am not arguing for people to have PAS’s left and right—what the resolution is implying, on the other hand, is that people will have the right to have one. Conclusion My resolution is for it to be legal for a terminally ill patient of sound mind to apply for, and, assuming there is approval, eventually have, a physician-assisted-suicide. I have argued namely that a person has the right to dispose of his/her life with dignity when they’re in pain, and that it should be legal if a physician is willing to oversee the process. Not only this, but I continue to contend that a physician’s goal is to relieve people’s suffering in the most appropriate manner, even if that includes assisting in a patient’s suicide. My opponent’s arguments have been that the system would be a fall-back, and that it could be easily abused. However, I feel that I have presented an adequate defense for these arguments—that people can effectively safeguard against many negative outcomes, and while error occurs, one cannot name with certainty enough flaws that can’t be countered with legislature. So, I feel that I, as well as the readers, can conclude that in the end, the resolution stands. Thank you. Reference [1] . http://www.balancedpolitics.org...