Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering

Note My opponent begins their round by attacking the resolution. May I remind my opponent that the resolution, definitions and rules were all agreed to in the first round. R1: Where? It doesn’t really matter where the assisted suicide takes place. This debate is about societies having a moral obligation towards whether or not assisted suicide should or should not be legal. The location is irrelevant to actual purpose of the debate. R2: Should? My opponent continues to question the resolution despite having accepted it previously. My opponent works out that it is about morality and I agree to his definition proposed. This debate is partly based on subjectivity as you can tell by my libertarian framework. I have chosen to be a libertarian because of my subjective beliefs however I justify them with objectivity which is what my opponent should be doing. According to my opponent, subjectivity somehow destroys the ability to decide. I have a few problems with this. Firstly, this is just an assertion backed up with no evidence. Secondly, subjectivity is not a sole factor involved. I have mentioned that they must have the correct mental health checks and they must be suffering. These are objective reasons. We must look at the facts as well as subjectivity. This example person (by definition), will die in x number of months. During this time period they will endure immense suffering and pain. Both objectivity and subjectivity point to the same conclusion. The person should have an assisted suicide. The assisted suicide will alleviate all pain and their death will only be shortened by a few months. R3: Who is the performer? My opponent attempts run a semantics argument which is clearly against the rules. They are questioning terminology of the debate that should be fairly simple. As a matter of fact, my opponent clearly hasn’t looked at the definition of assisted suicide because if they had look at this definition then they would have realized that they are in fact incorrect on making this assumption. The definition from R1 is as follows: “Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide).” The words: ‘medically trained professional’ are all that is needed to refute this argument presented by my opponent. These are the words of my opponent: “consider the Swiss model where anyone without a vested interest in the event can in fact assist.” He has clearly not looked at the definition of assisted suicide in this debate and has attempted to prove an inconsistency in the resolution. Voters should take note of this whilst voting because my opponent has quite clearly broken the rule regarding semantics. R4: Hippocratic Oath My opponent has chosen to quote from the original oath and has not acknowledged the issues with the oath that I previously mentioned. I showed that updating the oath was necessary because without the updates from the original oath a doctor is not allowed to do many things. Firstly, the original oath does not allow doctors to pierce the skin (ie. surgery). This is problematic for when surgery is necessary and without it death will be the result (1). Since this clearly shows that the original hippocratic oath is not a document that should be considered voters should prefer the updated version provided by me over my opponent’s since they have provided no reason as to why it is preferable to the updated hippocratic oath. My opponent claims that we shouldn’t be changing the original oath. It is time for a change and statistics prove this: “Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe that physicians should be allowed rights to assist terminally ill patients with end of life practices, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.” This is also supported by doctors. ‘For the first time, most U.S. doctors — 54 percent — favor aid in dying, backing the rights of patients with an incurable illness to seek "a dignified death,"’ (3) R5: Legalization = Facilitation My opponent hasn’t really introduced his point and it seems a bit unclear as to what the point he is trying to make is. Nevertheless, I will attempt to refute my opponent’s argument. My opponent has provided an example regarding Oregon's assisted suicide law. They haven’t really provided much for me to refute. They have provided a quote from Barack Obama when he is in fact in support of Oregon’s assisted suicide law. For those of you that don’t know what Oregon’s assisted suicide law is. I will now briefly explain. “In Oregon USA it has been legal for terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death for 18 years. In those 18 years there have been no cases of abuse and no calls to extend the law beyond terminally ill adults.” (2) It seems to be working out pretty well. There have been no cases of abuse. The laws are extremely well monitored and it is working very well for them. I do not think that it is pointing towards: “ that points towards a 'cold' future that nobody wants.” I think that it shows that assisted suicide can be an option for the terminally ill and if it is properly monitored then it can be run successfully. My opponent has given me a rebuttal to his argument regarding suicide tourism. He claims that we are eroding any solid ground that currently exists. This is not true and this is where I can turn his Oregon example against his argument. Oregon (as explained in the quote) has never had one abusive situation and this is not a bias quote. It is directly off the dignity in dying website that provides exact facts and figures regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide. Moreover, suicide tourism wasn’t the best argument for my opponent to use. He’s not arguing that assisted suicide should be abolished from every legal system. Your burden requires you to stop me from wanting to spread it elsewhere. I am saying that it should be legalized in places where it is not legal currently. You are arguing that it should remain illegal in these places. Suicide tourism is only possible because some states have it and others don’t. I am eliminating suicide tourism. My opponent is arguing for my case! In further regard to my opponent’s ‘solid ground’ argument. My opponent should be more specific on what solid ground he is referring to. You continue to use the word: ‘solid’ without examining what you mean or why it even matters. Your next point regarding the Montana judiciary isn’t explained. My opponent’s response baffles me. It has no explanation with it, it has no weight upon the resolution and has been presented completely out of context According to my opponent we don’t know where we are going yet. If my opponent read my first round he would have noticed that I was extremely clear that I did know where assisted suicide was going and I plotted it all out for you. Your assertions are not doing anything to change the facts presented in my arguments in the previous round. Since I have objectively proven that we know where we’re going with assisted suicide it only makes sense that we should seek going there faster rather than slower as my opponent appears to be suggesting. Strange Sources This is a note to voters. If you look at my opponent’s 2nd source regarding the Montana judiciary. If you scroll down to the conclusion of the case, you’ll see that they recognise the patient’s right to die with dignity and protection of the patient’s physician from liability under the state’s homicide statutes. That means that his source agrees with my position in the debate (4). Conclusion My opponent has failed to provide a valid argument that has not been refuted by me and my opponent has been attempting to shift their burden and alter the resolution throughout their round. My opponent cannot argue differently to what the resolution states. My opponent has also provided sources that are in favour of my position in the debate which shows that my opponent’s sources have little relevance to their position in the debate. My opponent has broken the semantics rule presented in R1 that he agreed to abide by (via acceptance). For these reasons, I urge voters to vote Pro! Sources(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...(2) http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...;(3) http://www.nbcnews.com...; (4) http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...;