Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

Again, I extend my gratitude for 00ike's response.Defense Against Con's Refutations1. The Physician's Duty1. The Hippocratic Oath.1a. In both parts A and B, Con makes the assertion that because the Hippocratic Oath is contrary to the practice of PAS, the practice would be contrary to physicians' duty, and thus should not be legalized. However, while the quote Con used in part A ("I will neither give a deadly drug...,”) IS in the Hippocratic Oath, what Con fails to account for is the fact that the Oath has been tweaked, as well as some parts of the Oath have been effectively abandoned ever since it was first created. For example, in the original Oath, abortion is prohibited for doctors, as well as surgery (“I will not cut persons laboring under the stone.”) [1]. However, nowadays, there are physicians that perform abortions, and even more physicians are surgeons. Using this logic, why should PAS be any exception?1b. Con here makes the point that the modern Hippocratic Oath states that a physician must avoid therapeutic nihilism, meaning the idea that a physician abandons the hop of an illness being cured. The sad truth is though, that by Con's definition of therapeutic nihilism, physicians are therapeutically nihilistic already in some cases. To find an example, one need only to look at a terminal illness. A terminal illness is defined by the medical dictionary as "an advanced stage of a disease with an unfavorable prognosis and no known cure," [2]. In other words, a disease which will most likely, if not certainly, end the life of a patient, even with treatment of symptoms. The very fact that diseases are considered terminal by physicians indicates that there already is therapeutic nihilism. So, the argument that PAS creates therapeutic nihilism and thus shouldn't be legalized is negated, as therapeutic nihilism is already accepted in the medical community.1c. To even further dismantle Con’s argument of the Hippocratic Oath, sources indicate that, even during the days of Hippocrates, PAS’s, as well as euthanasia (but that’s a different matter), were actually quite commonly performed, as well as recommended, by physicians [3]. So, again, I raise the question: if PAS’s were administered even when the Oath was created, then why should modern-day PAS’s, be any exception?1d. One final point I’d like to make involves the actual core value of the Hippocratic Oath. The main value that the Oath is trying to uphold is for physicians to not do any harm (hence the original prohibition of abortion/surgery.) The definition of harm as a noun is “physical injury or mental damage; hurt,” [4]. But the big question is, isn’t forcing a person to live with a terminal illness against their wishes, and in physical and mental pain, the definition of harm, and thus doing harm? So, by that logic, not legalizing PAS is going against a value at the heart of the Hippocratic Oath. To defend this specific point; even though I dismantled actual pieces of the Oath, most, if not all doctors, would agree that the core value of the Hippocratic Oath is still relevant and should be followed.And so, my argument still stands. 2. The Patient's Rights Whether this is a mistake on my part or not, I believe Con doesn't understand the actual universal modern process of PAS. Con contends that patients are not making the individual decision and execution, and that the physician literally does the deed. What Con is speaking of is euthanasia, and, while very close to PAS, it is different in that a patient makes the decision and, when physically able, the actual execution of the suicide with PAS, while euthanasia is more similar to mercy killing, based on the judgement of the person killing the patient [5]. Thus, I feel that this point is extremely relevant to my case and therefore still stands. 3. Cost of Dying Here, Con agrees to this point alone and by itself. So this point still stands. Refutations of Con's Contentions PAS is Immoral and Impractical 1. Here, Con's biggest contention is that Death shouldn't be an escape or easy option for a physician to not treat his patient. Again, I feel with this contention clarification is in order. In Oregon, (the only US state with PAS) the law requires doctors to inform the requestee of other options, such as a hospice, or palliative care, and that they are in fact possible alternatives [6]. So, I therefore say that the argument of a physician taking an easy way out is thus negated. 2. I agree in that it is true that doctors do make mistakes, and that people's emotions get out of hand. However, I feel I must, again, clarify, using the same source. Not only does the law require properly given alternatives, but also the certainty that the patient is in fact mentally competent of making such a decision, as well as a 15 day waiting period after the request for a PAS is accepted, to ensure that a patient's decision was not made in haste, nor was it pressured by a physician [6]. On top of this, patients certainly can get second opinions from other physicians if theirs feels incompetent or not as reputable. Thus again, I feel this point has been proved moot. 3. Here, Con asserts that government or insurance companies would pressure physicians to suggest PAS. However, the fact remains that a PAS is requested, not suggested. And even when it is requested, a physician must, as I pointed out earlier, present alternatives and make it clear that they are feasible. So, the danger that Con has presented is not as dangerous as he would make it out to be. 4. Here, Pro does raise a point about pain being an influence. And I agree that it can be an influence in the decision. But I will yet again point out that requesting, and having, a PAS is a fairly long process of at least 15 days, minus the actual requesting and acceptance, which could take just as long as well. On top of this, this is why so many "roadblocks," are put in place (mental competence, waiting period, alternatives, etc). Even more so than that, even when the drug is acquired, and the suicide is scheduled to be placed, a patient never reaches a point where the PAS must be carried out. The only time it happens is when the patient ingests the drug. Thus this should be ample time for consideration, including the time it took for a patient to even decide to request a PAS. Thank you so much, and I hand it over to Con. References [1] http://nktiuro.tripod.com... [2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://scienceweek.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [6] https://www.msu.edu...