The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

"My…government." This is ridiculous. People don't lose all money once they quit their job. Most terminally ill people don't work because of health reasons or to enjoy the time left. Since most would've worked before the illness most would have money saved. Some might not, but I never suggested forcing anybody to pay for it. Read the clarification in Round 1. My resolution doesn't require forcing anybody to pay for this. "Hospitals…LSD." What severe complications is Con worried about? Death? The patient is already dying. Getting scared? If that's bad enough we should ban horror movies. Plus, what ever the staff deals with can be covered by the patient's fees. In fact the hospital could make money from this and could spend it to improve services for everyone. "I…future." Con is suggesting we keep voluntary active euthanasia(VAE) illegal to stop involuntary euthanasia. That's like banning sex to stop rape. Whether VAE is legal or not involuntary euthanasia is just as illegal so banning VAE won't do anything to stop involuntary euthanasia. "I…problem." Con's missing the point that pressure to live is more likely than pressure to die for the reasons I've stated. Con is underestimating the strength of familial bonds if Con thinks families are likely to pressure people to die. And pressure to die is likely to be taken as hateful or insulting and so is likely to be ignored or even lead someone to choose life. Pressure to die would have barely any impact on people choosing VAE. Besides, pressure isn't a good reason to ban anything. We all face pressure in life. People are pressured to do legal things all the time, some deadly like smoking. These can lead to people losing decades off their lives compared to a few months or a year for a terminally ill person who chooses euthanasia. Either way pressure isn't force. The individual is still responsible for their choice. "In…all." Death is an option. According to "Cruzan", passive euthanasia(VPE) i.e. refusing treatment is a constitutional right if you're an adult of sound mind[1]. If a family was going to pressure with VAE legal they'd already pressure for VPE. But this is a slow, painful death. Unless VAE's allowed the patient's forced between a long suffering or a short more intense suffering before death and denied a quick, painless death. "Yes…horrible." Con is playing with words. "Any" doesn't always mean "any individual item". It often means "any type". For example, in an ice cream shop a mom might tell her kid he can have any ice cream he wants. She clearly doesn't mean he can just take from someone, she means he can choose from the types that are being sold. "There…them." Apparently Con thinks it is humane to condemn a person to death instead of letting them test potential cures. The Hippocratic Oath is "do no harm". There are few harms worse than death. If a person has a small chance of survival by trying an unproved method but a 100% chance of death if nothing is done is forced to forgo treatment they are being forced to die. "Forced death" is not doing "no harm". Furthermore, Con's characterization of "human guinea pigs" is erroneous. I'm talking about self-directed experimentation, not because a company looks for them. Regulation can stop exploitation. Letting any terminal patient have any drug they want doesn't mean it must be allowed as part of a study. In fact since studies need control groups and I propose allowing them any drug, making them accept the risk of getting a placebo would go against the resolution. The experimenting would be individual and would only give researchers anecdotal evidence if it worked. This could lead to breakthroughs if they followed up on the it and started proper animal and then human studies. This type of "experimentation" would be individual and motivated by individual research, not companies trying to make a buck. [1]http://www.law.umkc.edu...