Tim's debate tournament: Euthanasia

I would like to start by stating that I wasn't ignoring my opponents points in the second round, but simply following my precedent of debate procedure; that is, to post my initial argument in the second round and then move on to refutations and elaborations in the third round. Let the reader know that I am not skipping over my opponents point, and will address it further on in this round. Speaking of my opponent's points, I would also like to point out that he is only using really one contention, the other being a different way to say the same thing. I.E. personal autonomy should be maintained by the individual and the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer. These are one in the same, and should only be counted as one point. Also, my opponent doesn't even strengthen his "second" point, being that "the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer", but simply states his opinions. Let all opinions I point out of my opponents from this point on be discarded, for they are irrelevant. 1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressed. My opponent tries to negate my contention by, again, bringing up his point that self ownership is inalienable. Furthermore, he tries making my facts irrelevant by saying that my source was not a medical journal, website, or other medically associated source. I will show how both of these attacks fall, and why this point stands. A. Self-Ownership is inalienable- Pro tries to state that since every person has the right to their own body, it doesn't matter that they are depressed, but since they want to be Euthanized, they should. My opponent, however, seriously misjudges my actually point I am trying to make to the reader. This depression that is found in patients can be compared to a dark cloud over their minds; their judgement of what THEY as a PERSON actually want is completely fogged and they have no real motive for wanting to be Euthanized. I'm not saying that I, as a casual observer, think they wouldn't have a reason. More so I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue with being Euthanized after they were cured of this depression. But, unlike my opponent, I wont just state my opinion, but use fact to show why this is correct. "Advocates of physician-assisted suicide try to convey the impression that in terminally ill patients the wish to die is totally different from suicidal intent in those without terminal illness. However, like other suicidal individuals, patients who desire an early death during a terminal illness are usually suffering from a treatable mental illness, most commonly a depressive condition. Strikingly, the overwhelming majority of the terminally ill fight for life to the end. Some may voice suicidal thoughts in response to transient depression or severe pain, but these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are grateful to be alive." ( H. Hendin and G. Klerman, "Physician-assisted Suicide: The Dangers of Legalization", American Journal of Psychiatry). On top of these facts, and a completely medical source..."A study of hospice patients who were terminally ill 'found that the majority of terminally ill patients did not want to die; and all who desired death were suffering from major depression. Many other studies have reached the same conclusion: terminally ill individuals who choose to have their lives ended make the choice because they are suffering from depression, not because they are suffering from a particular terminal illness.'" Affidavit of Nancy J. Osgood, Ph.D., Medical College of Virginia. Patients respond WELL to being treated, and will, as stated above, cease desires for euthanasia after they are cured. However, it's not easy to spot depression early on in patients, leading to all these patients wanting to be euthanized, and if the depression builds, it could become too late. Therefore, I advocate that instead of legalizing euthanasia, we train doctors and psychiatrists more in the ways of finding depression in those who are terminally ill and actually test these patients more often for such mind-clouding conditions."The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association agree 'most physicians fail to recognize depression, thereby precluding the opportunity for effective treatment."' (http://www.nightingalealliance.org...) My opponent states that places where Euthanasia are legalized are prime hunting ground for statistics. Well, let's take a look at Oregon real quick, one of the places my opponent mentioned. In accordance to the American Journal of Psychiatry..."In a survey of Oregon psychiatrists, only 6% felt very confident that, absent a long-term relationship with a patient, that they could satisfactorily determine in a single visit if a patient was competent to commit suicide." On top of this, "In Oregon's first three years of legalized assisted suicide, only 29% of patients received any psychiatric examination before being given a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs." Doctor's aren't even testing all the patients for depression, basically handing out the death drugs like candy. Are they doing their job correctly, upholding the doctor's oath, if they aren't even checking all possible alternatives that a patient would be requesting euthanasia for? This is a problem, and will only spread to all the other states and families of loved ones if euthanasia is legalized. Finally, we can take a look at the study my opponent cited by the Oxford Journal of Medicine. Upon taking a closer look, we can see that the study consisted of only 76 patients. Of those, only 17 requested Euthanasia. Upon even CLOSER looks, we see that of these 17, 47%(8) were depressed. Are these the kind of numbers we want to legalize something off of? 8 patients?? The study he cited said ITSELF "Further depressed mood was not associated with explicitly requesting euthanasia in this patient group, ALTHOUGH STATISTICALLY UNDER POWER CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN THIS SMALL SAMPLE." I apologize for the emphasis with the use of capital letters, but I don't know how to bold the letters, which would have been preferred. Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent states that the right to self ownership is inalienable. Why then does every male in the United States at the age of 18 have to sing up for "selective service", where he signs over his body to the U.S. government in the time of war. After that, your body isn't your own, for you cannot end your life (which isn't allowed anyway) or decide not to fight, for you will be persecuted and arrested. This, on top of everything else stated, invalidates my opponents refutation and leaves my point standing. 2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched Pro gives NO sources or facts to back up his statements that these drugs won't develop for decades to come, while I have given fact stating that these drugs are in development, and I will reiterate that fact. "One-half of the cancer drugs in the last three years have made it to the market within six months." This is progress, which my opponent blatantly ignores. "Clinical trials involving patients with cancer are "the requisite path for our advances" in cancer research" (http://leda.law.harvard.edu...) |Conclusion| Now, I have two standing points, while my opponent has none, for he has given no reason/fact/source that strengthens his point, and has actually only really stated a couple sentence in regard to it, while he decides to focus on attacking my points. Within my refutations, I have actually countered my opponents personal autonomy argument, stating that after proper methods are implemented, patients won't want Euthanasia. Why would we legalize something that would hinder medical research and end human life? It would be all too easy for doctors, like in Oregon, to just hand out the pil