Euthanasia

Doctors and Euthanasia My opponents rebuttal isn't convincing. I never said that doctors would be required to perform physician assisted suicide. I formed a moral argument as to why they should not, and if they did perform them, would do so at the expense of the patient. The fact that someone is taking a life by ‘choice’ is not a good argument in favor of euthanasia. In fact, it is the exact point which I was arguing. A doctor who chooses, by intent, to kill their patient is committing an atrocious action. Lives worth living My opponent has not presented an argument as to why patients need an option to choose death, he merely assumes that people agree on this premise. But, as I argued in round one, “[t]o support assisted suicide is to favor death over life, and admit that under some conditions lives of people are worth less than others, which demonizes the weak patients who would ask for such a terrible thing.” Further, as euthanasia becomes accepted (for reasons such as the patient is suffering), the patients begin to see their lives as worthless due to these notions of the possibility of euthanasia, and don't see a right to die, rather a duty to die [1]. My opponent claims that we should merely enforce the laws that have been passed on the books. But as stated, this is excruciatingly hard to accomplish. As the patient is dead, there is no proof that the patient didn’t ask for suicide. Further, according to current court rulings, it has been ruled that a doctor CAN kill his patients without consent, even when we assume all the terminally ill choose death, under good conscience. The court has generally argued a doctor can legally kill people who are competent… However, according to many legal opinions, this means that you can legally kill people--without consent--if they are deemed not competent [1]. This means those terminally ill can be deemed not competent, and legally killed without consent. According to the law, even under full enforcement, this will be possible due to the precedent the courts have set down. More on enforcement, the enforcement idea has been attempted in the Netherlands. However, as the law existed, and people became more accepting of the idea (as it’s existence led to the society accepting it morally) actually led to an evolution of enforcement. As people became pro-suicide, the amount of enforcement decreased. Parts of the law were changed, and it is no longer seen as taboo in that part of the world [2]. The fact is, the ‘enforcement’ rebuttal does not stand up when the facts and examples of other countries are taken into account. My opponent barely tries to refute my argument under palliative care. He merely claims that some of the patients will still be suffering. However, that begs the question: why is suffering a reason to kill the patient? If you see a homeless person, sick, suffering, and freezing on a rainy day, would you seem it moral to hit him with your car because you ended his suffering? If we were debating that, I would say ‘the homeless shelters and charities relieve much of their suffering’, and using the same logic, you would say ‘charities and shelters cannot house them all’. The suffering argument really isn’t logical when you look at it. Even if we assume it is, it ignores the fact that virtually all patients can be treated for pain, and recent medicinal advancements have made this possible (many of these advancements have improved since the data I cited last round). Some of these include morphine patches. These patches deliver morphine through the skin, similar to nicotine patches, to make a comparison we are familiar with. These patches deliver morphine throughout the night so that patients do not need to be disturbed taking medicines at all hours of the night. In nearly every pain case, doctors refuse to prescribe--or refuse to prescribe enough--morphine in order to relieve pain due to fears of addiction. However, only 0.04% of patients become addicted to morphine when prescribed [1]. A former euthanasia doctor was quoted saying in a recent interview, “And I do believe that real access to palliative care that is timely, that is high quality, would essentially eliminate the need for [euthanasia]” [3]. Essentially, I am arguing for human virtue, “Human beings have value simply by virtue of their being alive”[4], whereas my opponent wishes to, when in doubt, pull the plug. However, as noted, I have provided a huge amount of evidence that palliative care (1) is harmed by euthanasia (instead of helping patients, doctors resort to killing them), and (2) good, proper, palliative care reduces significantly, if not eliminates, pain, and therefore euthanasia. Educating doctors to properly treat patients in pain is far superior to educating them on how to kill them. Economic impacts My opponent essentially drops my argument. He claims I technically conceded the point, agreeing that it will help the economy, but this is untrue. I stated how minimal, how infinitesimally small, the economic benefits are to the economy by allowing euthanasia. Further, even if I did (which I dont) accepted by opponent’s argument, it again begs the question: is the destruction of human life worth the health of the economy? -> The economic benefits are so small, they are unnoticeable, other policies which don't destroy life would help the economy much more -> Even assuming the economic benefits were huge, would it be civilized to allow the destruction of human life in order to grow the economy? Euthanasia happens anyway See, my opponent agree on the basic premise: euthanasia will always exist in one form or another. The question is can we reduce its occurrence, and should we accept it as a society. The second question has been discussed at length in all my arguments. The first is also ‘yes’. Euthanasia increased 500% during the period that the government and society allowed physician assisted suicide [5]. For anyone who accepts my arguments above--or, as a voter who may disagree with me, feels as though I proved them in the parameters of the debate--my rebuttal here flows perfectly. Euthanasia is bad, legalization dramatically increases its use, therefore to reduce euthanasias occurrence, banning it is the logical answer. Further, as laws shape how societies function and think, legalization will lead to increased acceptance which, as I have demonstrated, is a poor moral decision. Conclusion My opponent has failed to prove his arguments. When we look at the examples from other countries, or appeal to common sense, we see that the arguments for euthanasia fall like a house of cards in the wind. Euthanasia is… 1) Immoral 2) Reduces palliative care 3) Leads to, based on logic and court rulings, the non-voluntary killing of those deemed ‘not competent’ 4) Has minimal economic impact 5) Assumes that some lives have more worth than others based on the assumption that pain and terminal illness reduce human worth (my opponent has not refuted this--if he claims this is untrue, then here is a simple question: wouldn’t, if lives are all equal, killing patients with NO pain whatsoever be acceptable? The answer is yes, any denial of this is bound to be weak) 6) And finally, it breaks doctor-patient trust, another argument my opponent dropped As of now, my opponent has been unable to respond to my moral argument with a strong case, or has ignored the most potent questions I pose to the practice of euthanasia. Further, my practical arguments demonstrate the failure of euthanasia legalization in other countries, and ‘enforcement’ is an impossible idea. Or, to refer to my opponents picture, my argument is strong like Jeffrey's, his argument is more like God's. ;) With that long conclusion… I urge a CON vote. 1. http://www.nysrighttolife.org... 2. Herbert Hendin. "The Slippery Slope: The Dutch Example," Duquesne Law Review, (Fall 1996). 3. http://www.firstthings.com... 4. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 5. http://www.cnn.com...