Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

I will begin by refuting pro's arguments and then providing my own proof as to why PAS should be illegal. *****REFUTATIONS*****1. "A physician’s duty to his/her patients is simple: to relieve (as much as possible) his/her patient’s suffering, as well as preserve the dignity of said patient [1]. If a person with a terminal and painful illness is barely mobile, cannot feed his/herself, but can request to be assisted in suicide by a physician, and the physician refuses due to it being unlawful, then his/her duty isn’t being met. The patient is clearly suffering to some capacity (even with pain medication, psychological anguish is present), as well as being robbed of his/her dignity, having to lie in a bed, as others must do things for him/her. "While derived from a source, I respectfully disagree with my opponent's interpretation of a physicians duty. A physician's duty is neither to relieve as much suffering as possible or preserve the dignity of the patient. A physician's ultimate duty is to prevent death through curing or retarding the progression of ailments. That is the first and foremost reason for the medical system. WHY? :1. This is the historical and universal hippocratic oath of all medical professionals: a. derived from the classical hipporatic oath ". .. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. .. " [1] b. derived from the modern hippocratic oath "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. " [2] Therapeutic nihilism is the belief that an ailment cannot be cured. Hence, it is implied that the oath taken by all physicians and the duty to that effect is to always try to cure one's patient. The option of killing the patient is contrary to this sworn oath. Hence, I would like the readers to extract from these excerpts the point: A physician's ultimate duty is to prevent death through curing or retarding the progression of ailments. They must always try and try again to cure the ailment. Assisting the death of a patient would infringe upon that duty and obligation. 2. "Any person, whether a medical patient or not, owns his/her body, as well as life. Therefore, he/she also has the right to do with his/her body and life as he/she fits"This point does not have much relevance or merit in this particular debate. Pro can use this contention in a debate regarding suicide legality. However, this debate is about physicians, the one's we trust most to help us live, assisting suicide. Since the patients are not making the absolute individual desicion and execution of ending their own life, it is done by someone else, pro's point that is quoted above has no relevance. It only applies to those who kill themselves independently. It is a different atmosphere when a physician helps this act. 3. "Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [2]. This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [3]. I’d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn’t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [4]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Once more, I’d like to go back to my hypothetical. Let’s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn’t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/he be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well. "My opponent is basically saying that physician assisted suicide should be legal because it saves the families' money. I will not argue against the fact that PAS could save families money on funerals, but I will point out that this is only one practical benefit. I will prove in the following contentions that the moral and practical drawbacks heavily outweigh this one practical benefit. It will hence become my proof that if it is, on the grand scale, both impractical and immoral to legalize PAS, then it should not be legal. *****PROOF OF MY POSITION*****Physician Assisted Suicide is Immoral and Impractical1. It demeans the value of a human life. Death, in this modern age, is sometimes taken lightly by those who do not fully understand its impact on their beings, life, and the people around them. It is the ultimate duty of a physician to protect and defend life. Death cannot be used as a means of escape or an easier option for a physician than working vigorously to cure and help the patient. " . .. human life means something. .. To stomp out a life because it's not convenient or it's expensive demeans that value. " [3]2. Physicians are not always correct and can make mistakes or simply do immoral things. In such events, a life can be lost through PAS when such was unnecessary. Legalizing PAS opens the door to such accidents. At an unfortunately consistent rate, doctors misdiagnose their patients. Who's to say that a man or woman won't kill themselves once they mistakenly hear they have cancer? We cannot allow such accidents to even have this slim gateway of possibility. A human life is too dear to risk the possibility of such tragic occurrences ESPECIALLY since that risk isn't critically necessary. Physicians can also be immoral, they may tell their patients that they will die painfully and prompt them to accept PAS when that is not necessary. We cannot allow these possibilities to come to fruition. The best way to ensure this is to keep PAS illegal.3. The government and ensurance companies could also use PAS for immoral purposes. They could pressure physicians to suggest PAS because it would be less expensive and more efficient, when there other are options for the patient. My opponent himself made it a point to outline the financial benefit of suicide. It is a dangerous possibility that companies and the government could manipulate this financial gain for themselves. Keeping PAS illegal would, for the most part, nullify this threat. 4. My opponent said, "provided that his/her decision hasn’t been influenced by anything other than his/her own personal judgment"Pain is a form of influence. Pain and pressure can influence people to do things that they may not really want. When a patient is under the influence of suffering and pain, his mind becomes fixated on alleviating that pain at all costs. It is not fair to the patient to readily accept his decisions while under such pressure. It is only the decisions made under more placid conditions that truly reflect the genuine desires of people. Hypothetical situation: A man/woman with cancer will probably experience tremendous pain. He/she may also have a family to take care of. With PAS as an open option, while the patient is not thinking clearly and just wants to feel at ease, he may abandon whatever children or family he/she has waiting at home and choose suicide. The man/woman will have died in vain, because had that pain not clouded his/her judgement, he/she may have chosen to live. Now you have an unnecessary death, and a heartbroken family. Now my opponent could ammend his resolution to say that PAS should be legal when the patient is not influenced by pain, but that would not make sense either. If a patient is not experiencing pain, then out of respect for the value of a human life, and a physician's oath, there would be no justification for administering PAS. SOURCES*read comments