Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized

Thank you Minuteman, for your arguments/rebuttals. Now, for my rebuttal. Duty of the Physician Con argues that a physician should not be allowed to participate in a PAS because doing so would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. However, while the quote Con used ("I will not prescribe a patient a lethal drug,”) IS in the Hippocratic Oath, what Con fails to account for is the fact that the Oath has been tweaked, as well as some parts of the Oath have been effectively abandoned ever since it was first created. For example, in the Oath, abortion is prohibited for doctors, as well as surgery (“I will not cut persons laboring under the stone.”) [1]. However, nowadays, there are physicians that perform abortions, and even more physicians are surgeons. Using this logic, why should PAS be any exception? To even further dismantle Con’s argument of the Hippocratic Oath, sources indicate that, even during the days of Hippocrates, PAS’s, as well as euthanasia (but that’s a different matter), were actually quite commonly performed, as well as recommended, by physicians [2]. So, again, I raise the question: if PAS’s were administered even when the Oath was created, then why should modern-day PAS’s, be any exception? One final point I’d like to make involves the actual core value of the Hippocratic Oath. The main value that the Oath is trying to uphold is for physicians to not do any harm (hence the original prohibition of abortion/surgery.) The definition of harm as a noun is “physical injury or mental damage; hurt,” [3]. But the big question is, isn’t forcing a person to live with a terminal illness against their wishes, and in physical and mental pain, the definition of harm, and thus doing harm? So, by that logic, not legalizing PAS is going against a value at the heart of the Hippocratic Oath. To defend this specific point; even though I dismantled actual pieces of the Oath, most, if not all doctors, would agree that the core value of the Hippocratic Oath is still relevant and should be followed. Harming Others’ Rights? Here, Con argues that by having a PAS, the patient is infringing on his/her relatives’ right to “the pursuit of Happiness,” as written in the U.S. Declaration of Independence [4]. While this “unalienable right,” is a core value of the United States, the Declaration of Independence has very little, if any official legal weight [5]. So, I could technically stop rebutting this argument here, as this debate is about the legalization of PAS, and is therefore about whether any rights are legally infringed upon. But, I will rebut Con’s argument under the assumption that the right to “the pursuit of Happiness,” is a legal right. Now, here, I find that Con forgets what the right he used actually is: the pursuit of Happiness. Note that it isn’t the right happiness itself—simply the opportunity to obtain happiness. So, while a family grieves over a loved one, they still have the ability to pursue happiness. Cost of Dying Con points out here that 5/6ths of Americans have medical insurance that would pay for most, or all, medical bills. This may be true, but I feel that I must raise a contention against this argument. While it’s true that 5 out of 6 have insurance, I would like to ask what about the 1/6 that doesn’t have insurance? What Con seems to be arguing sounds a bit unfair, to say that because most people have insurance, the remaining few terminally ill should not be allowed to have a procedure that would curtail costs for relatives, among other benefits. Summary So, in short, I feel that Con’s arguments aren’t sufficient to justify not allowing anyone to have a PAS. References [1] http://nktiuro.tripod.com... [2] http://scienceweek.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.usconstitution.net... [5] http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... Thanks for reading, and I await Minuteman’s response. Also, it’s my first full debate too, Minuteman.