Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

The Hippocratic Oath1. "The sad truth is though, that by Con's definition of therapeutic nihilism, physicians are therapeutically nihilistic already in some cases To find an example, one need only to look at a terminal illness. A terminal illness is defined by the medical dictionary as "an advanced stage of a disease with an unfavorable prognosis and no known cure," [2]. In other words, a disease which will most likely, if not certainly, end the life of a patient, even with treatment of symptoms. The very fact that diseases are considered terminal by physicians indicates that there already is therapeutic nihilism" My opponent attempts to use the concept of a terminal illness to show the presence of therapeutic nihilism, but he does so under false pretenses. A terminal illness being described as such does not imply that the physician will not attempt to cure or retard the ailment. For example. Cancer is a terminal illness. However, processes such as Chemotherapy, Radiation therapy, and immunotherapy are used constantly, Over and over again to cure or help the patient. Never is it accepted for the physician to give up. Therefore, my opponent's assertion that therapeutic nihilism is already accepted in the medical community is factually unsound. What does this all mean?a. Well, I proved earlier that PAS implies therapeutic nihilism b. and the modern oath is against therapeutic nihilismc. What better describes a physician's duty than the oath he takes upon entering his profession?d. Therefore, PAS is against the duty of a physician....and so we have arrived at my first contention. 2. "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 [3]. 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?"I guess the hippocrates were hypocrites, but that does not nullify the validity of the oath still used and honored by doctors worldwide to this day. I will also use this as an opportunity to negate. Pro stated that the oaths have been tweaked. That is false, people have developed opinions for or against the oaths, but they still stand absolutely unchanged. 3. "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,” [4]. 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?"That in and of itself is a distortion of the intention of the oaths. My opponent uses the word "forces" when 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. All that I urge and argue for is that a physician should not be involved in the act of ending his patient's life. REFUTATIONS 1. " Here, Con's biggest contention is that Death shouldn't be an escape or easy option for a physician to not treat his patient. Again, I feel with this contention clarification is in order. In Oregon, (the only US state with PAS) the law requires doctors to inform the requestee of other options, such as a hospice, or palliative care, and that they are in fact possible alternatives [6]. So, I therefore say that the argument of a physician taking an easy way out is thus negated."Who is to enforce this law, and who will know if the patient was properly informed of all possible alternatives? No one. Whether or not the law says so, the physician could neglect to mention options or make frivilous mistakes in information that could lead to disasterous results. Now I know my argument works on a "what if" basis, but when dealing with human lives we nust consider the worst and gauge the risk. Pro's contentions seem to hold value only under a perfect, strictly law abiding medical system, and that alone is unrealistic. It is the "what ifs", the tangent scenarios, and the variables that make PAS so risky and implausible. The matter of life and death is one without room for such uncertainty. 2. "Here, Con asserts that government or insurance companies would pressure physicians to suggest PAS. However, the fact remains that a PAS is requested, not suggested. And even when it is requested, a physician must, as I pointed out earlier, present alternatives and make it clear that they are feasible. So, the danger that Con has presented is not as dangerous as he would make it out to be."Again I will point out the unfortunate naivety of Pro's logic. His points work only under a perfect, law abiding medical system, but such does not exist. Insurance companies and the government have much to gain from PAS. They save money, quite a lot of money. Regardless of law, legalization of PAS all over the country will open the doors to very disturbing scenarios and deviousness from the corporate world. I will introduce one more final contention as to why PAS should be illegal:1. It will deplete our faith and trust in modern medicine and medical knowledge. The effort and drive to keep people alive (AS IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROFESSION) will die as patients increasingly give up on the trustworthiness and reliability of our medicine and physicians' ability to discover, invent, and cure for the better of humanity. Once death becomes an option, people lose faith and hope. Dying becomes a fall-back. We won't have as many people crusading for solutions, for cures, the tunnel to peace (death) would become an inviting option for many. Once diagnosed with cancer, how many people would simply end their lives when, who knows, a cure could be the breaking news of the following day. I am well aware that my argument comes across as emotive and idealistic, but the topic of life and death is emotive by nature, so it cannot be met with strictly practical eyes. I do not argue, saying that we must force patients to stay alive, I argue that the medical field must NEVER condone or support death, much less assist it. If we are to maintain the integrity of this field, the hope, the tenacity, and the public trust in medical professionals, the law must remain as it is. Let those who want to give up, give up by themselves, the medical field must not join in. The medical field must always have the attitude of ascension, and tirelessly aiming towards solutions, treatments, and cures. THIS was the real attitute of the modern hippocratic oath.