You Choose the Resolution!

Thank you for your response. (This is the last round of the debate: Defense of your arguments) (Since the rules weren’t updates, concluding statements are optional) D1: Autonomy and Alleviation of Pain My opponent argues that terminally ill patients are being pressured to use PAS; albeit, he never explains how exactly patients are pressured or forced into choosing PAS over further palliative care. He presents a quote about how the psychological unstableness of patients isn’t considered. Before I touch on that, I would like to address that it is true that the end goal for PAS is to help the terminally sick palliate their suffering in the form of death, but it must also be acknowledged that it wouldn’t do any better with palliative care either, in fact, it would only temporarily alleviate the pain. That’s something that my opponent has failed to invalidate. British Clinical neuroscientist and physician Prof. Raymond Tallis asserts, “Unbearable suffering, prolonged by medical care and inflicted on a dying patient who wishes to die is an unequivocal evil … What’s more, the right to have your choices supported by others, to determine your own best interest when you are of sound mind, is sovereign” (1). Example: Matthew Donnelly was involved in a radiation accident when doing research on X-rays, which lead him to become sick with skin cancer: “…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” (2). Donnelly was denied of PAS, which only condemned him to die in inevitable pain and unwanted manner. Matthew’s right to die peacefully was taken away. The anecdote takes an abysmal turn when Matthew’s brother ended his life instantaneously by shooting him with a .30 caliber pistol; it was intolerable for him to see his brother suffer, but at the same, he committed a crime that most may find unscrupulous. The reality is that some illnesses cannot be cured (or the possibilities are very sheer); hence, there’s a reason they’re called “terminal”. Regardless of how sophisticated technology becomes if that technology can reverse an illness, then assisted suicide wouldn’t be needed; conversely, this technology doesn’t exist (2). But what does exist and still stands is the person’s choice. Psychological evaluations: Another crucial part of the quote is that patients willing to partake in PAS aren’t psychologically evaluated; however, that’s untrue because under the new bill passed by the Supreme Court in 1997 the physician is mandated to psychologically evaluate the patient if he suspects that patient to be mentally unstable: “Examine the role of psychology in end-of-life decisions and quality of care issues;” “Address the invisibility of psychology around the issue of end-of-life decisions and recommend methods to increase the visibility of psychology and the role of psychologists in this arena;” “Consider and make recommendations on whether it might be appropriate for APA to take a position on the issue of assisted suicide and end-of-life decisions” (3). It is also stipulated that before PAS / euthanasia can be allowed, more than one physician must confirm the patient’s terminal illness to evade possible misdiagnosis: “The patient must be an adult, two independent physicians must confirm the diagnosis, and the patient must sign a written request in the presence of two witnesses attesting that the patient is competent and acting voluntarily” (4). D2: Current Laws do more Harm My opponent asserts that my arguments are invalid because I use emotional appeal to influence my audience’s opinion; henceforth, creating a logical fallacy. However, I would like to point out that my opponent’s second example about a 66-year-old misdiagnosed woman contains a logical fallacy as well; her death wasn’t the cause of PAS, but rather a failed palliative/analgesic treatment. Yet again, my opponent purports syllogism between the two, without giving us evidence to substantiate that this syllogism even exists (PAS and misdiagnosis). This is a logical fallacy because he has appealed to ignorance. My opponent implies that misdiagnosis is a threat; irrespective, I could also assert that improper palliative care and mishandling analgesics is a threat as well. It has to be noted that he hasn’t given us a single example of an incident where a misdiagnosed PAS patient died as a result of euthanasia (or) other forms of PAS, allowed by his misdiagnosis. Secondly, my opponent states that “physicians aren’t held to any standard” to undertake PAS. Although that may seem just at first glance, but isn't a patient's (considering we're in a state that permits PAS) right to death and alleviation of suffering a doctor's main priority (I will touch on this in my later contention). The quote that my opponent uses has a completely subjective sentiment because it disseminates the idea that physicians in Oregon who administer assisted suicide should be viewed as criminals because of the following reasons: “Immunizing doctors from criminal prosecution, civil liability, or even professional discipline”. The reality is Oregon’s law permits it because they believe it is a justifiable act. Therefore, there’s no reason to attempt to chastise their field of work. To provide more evidence to support this contention, a British woman by the name Diane Pretty—though, this happened in Britain, instances like this are manifested across the US as well—who was a mother of 2 children had motor neuron disease, from which she succumbed from. Despite experience terrible pain (breathing issues causing her to choke and asphyxiate), the court rejected her appeal for assisted suicide She told her husband, “The law has taken all my rights away”. Due to her illness, she fell in a coma, and died shortly after at the age of 43. Her husband said in an interview that there was nothing he could’ve done: “Diane had to go through the one thing she had foreseen and was afraid of - and there was nothing I could do to help” (5). D3: Hippocratic Oath Though the H.O. states to refrain from harming the patients, the ancient Greek and Roman physicians didn’t perceive they were committing harm to their patients: “The ancient Greeks also not only condoned the suicide of people suffering extreme pain and incurable illness, but did not stop physicians from doling out poison. Even Plato, whose reasoning influenced centuries of philosophy and political thinking, believed: ‘Mentally and physically ill persons should be left to death; they do not have the right to live’” (6). My opponent acknowledges that the H.O. has been updated to satisfy the current standards and status quo of our contemporary society, however, he has neglected that the modernized version condones doctor’s right to take away another life: “But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God” (7). Lastly, my opponent asserts that I interpret the document as being “inherently flawed”. However, I only interpret some verses of the H.O. to be inherently flawed as they do not submit to your current society’s status quo. Sources: [1]: http://goo.gl... [2]: https://goo.gl... [3]: http://goo.gl... [4]: http://goo.gl... [5]: http://goo.gl... [6]: http://bit.ly... [7]: http://goo.gl...