Oregon's Death By Dignity Law.

First off, I would like to apologize for forfeiting the last round. I was in Chicago and things went awry, as my service project took longer than anticipated and my grandmother got terribly ill which wasn’t anticipated at all. As a result, I have treated this speech as one from Round 4, and have brought in new points and refuted my opponents previous points. I invite him to use his conclusion speech as one to refute mine and bring in new points if he so desires. Clarifying the Clarification Although the two are ethically indistinguishable, this law isn't euthanasia because the patient themselves administer the treatment. "Euthanasia is a different procedure for hastening death. In euthanasia, a doctor injects a patient with a lethal dosage of medication. In the Act, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient - not the doctor - administers the medication. Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the US, including Oregon. The Act has been legal in Oregon since November 1997."[2] A quick story, with a valuable message. Matthew Donnelly loved life. For the past thirty years, Matthew had conducted research on the use of X-rays. Now, skin cancer riddled his tortured body. He had lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw. He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. The pain was unrelenting. Doctors estimated that he had a year to live. Lying in bed with teeth clenched from the excruciating pain, he pleaded to be put out of his misery. Matthew wanted to die now. His pleas went unanswered. [3]It is easy for my opponent to argue Euthanasia using examples of depressed terminally ill patients who aren't suffering all that much, but when determining the righteosness of an action we must take into all that it will affect, and remember thhat by making assisted suicide illegal, we are takng that right away from the 5% of the population that suffer from diseases whose pain cannot be suffieciently cured by medication. [4] Death With Dignity Patients aren’t choosing between Life and Death. First off, I would like to make note of the fact that the patients requesting Death With Dignity, are not, infact, choosing between death and life. Under Oregon Law, a terminal illness is an “incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed...[to]produce death within six months” [5] In other words, The patient's primary objective is not to end an otherwise open-ended span of life but to find dignity in an already impending exit from this world, and find a less painful way out. One cannot argue that Matthew Donnelly and his wish to die was irrational. Using the words of my opponent’s philosopher , Kant, “ To help others where one can is a duty...without any further motive of vanity or self intrest”. When they cannot be helped through medication, and a painful death is impending, it cannot be reasonably argued that we prolong the death, and lengthen a life of suffering against the patients will. Death with Dignity patients aren't Irrational or mentally unstable. The majority of patients choosing death with dignity, are not clinically depressed.[6] Furthermore, Statistics show that “even many of the law's opponents admit the most aggressive pain management measures fail to alleviate the suffering of 5% of terminally-ill patients,” [4]. One cannot argue that death with dignity is an unreasonable choice for those those 5%. Given a life of less that 6 months filled with such suffering and no alleviation, or a quick dignified hastened death, a reasonable human who isn’t a masochist would be favorable towards Death with dignity. Furthermore in a practical sense, in order to be eligibe for DWD, you must be determined by a psychologist to be mentally stable and capable and having no judgement impairing factors. [7]. Dead Man can’t appreciate physician assisted suicide, but a live one can. Indeed, a dead man can't appreciate the alleviation from suffering, but the living, suffering man can. This man can appreciate the release from a life filled with pain. Just as a person stuck in a cast gets hope from the thought of getting his cast off, or someone with braces counting down the months to getting it off, or someone held hostage and being tortured longs to be rescued, allowing Death with Dignity or Physician assisted suicide, allows the patient another option and gives them hope. Spending the last few months of one’s life in deep suffering MAY seem like a reasonable option to my opponent, but 75% of all interviewed realized the pain involved in that and recognized the value in giving the patients an option besides living their pain out. PinPrick Argument. Mill’s theory of pleasure over pain, does not infer that we cure every pain with death. A young boy with a broken arm has a long life ahead of him and so death would only cause him pain. His pain can be cured by simple medications, a couple of ibuprofens after getting his cast on. The patients we are talking about do not have a long life ahead of them, they have merely six months, and furthermore if they are inflicted with a disease such as bone cancer, pancreatic cancer or lung disease it causes intolerable pain and suffering that cannot be managed. Offering these people Assisted Suicide, would not be unjust seeing as they are not ending an open ended life, and because the pain they are freeing themselves from is greater than the pleasure they are avoiding. In this example we can see how the pleasure versus pain argument does work if applied correctly. Conclusion Kant, my opponent's philosopher, says, “To help others where one can is a duty...” If they cannot be helped by medicine, then it is our job to help end their suffering. Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death, so their only option is suicide. To allow physician assisted suicide for these patients as well, is only just and logical. Kant also brought up the idea of Categorical Imperative and objectifying one’s actions to determine whether it is just. This philosophy itself is inpractical as everything has an exception. A universally recognized moral maxim is to not lie. However none of us would condemn a man who lied in order to protect the location of his family in a murder. Just as this situation is an exception in an already flawed argument, so is physician assisted suicide. As a moral maxim, we should oppose anything promoting the harming of oneself. Giving these statistics, and given that the patient is suffering and merely has 6 months to live, the argument in forcing them to keep living, putting them in counseling, or further prolonging their death is irrational. We are not objectifying suicide, but rather being allowed to self-determine the means of an already impending death. We should not allow “autonomy” when its hurting others, but physician assisted suicide and Death With Dignity is not hurting any but yourself, in which case we should allow it. Should we objectify NOT being allowed autonomy? I thank my opponent for a good debate. [1] http://www.hospicecare.com... [2] http://public.health.oregon.gov... [3] http://www.scu.edu...;[4] deathwithdignity.org[5] http://Public.health.oregon.gov...[6] http://www.bmj.com...