Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

Closing Rebuttals1. "Here, Con contradicts himself in his thinking. While he does agree that "the hippocrates were hypocrites,"he also states that this does not detract from the value of the modern Hippocratic Oath. The problem with this is that he immediately counters another argument of mine by saying that the Oath is unchanged. So, one could say that, by proxy, the modern Oath's value is detracted from, seeing as how the previous Oath was ignored, and the modern Oath is in effect, the original."There seems to be a lack of connections in pro's rebuttal. What gives the oath it's value, as far as modern times are concerned, is whether or not it is acknowledged, followed, and respected by a decent amount of doctors today. I cited the classical hipporcatic oath because it is indeed respected and followed by many doctors today. So the classical hippocratic oath still stands as a credible source of evidense against PAS. The modern Hippocratic oath is what all physicians recite upon graduation, and that too, as I showed had implications against PAS such as the denouncement of therapeutic nihilism. I do not see the detraction in value of either oath that my opponent is imagining, nor do I see the contradiction he speaks of. 2. " As well, I'd also like to point out another flaw. One of Con's contentions is that PAS's should stay illegal because that would then allow a physician to break his/her Oath. This is why we've been debating this issue of the Oath in particular so heavily. However, if what Con has stated is true, and that the modern Oath remains effectively unchanged, then his overall contention that PAS violates the Oath is proved false. Abortion and surgery, two things which I argued earlier were directly not allowed according to the Oath, are both legal across the US. Of course, I'm not suggesting the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument, but what I am suggesting is that Con's argument using the Hippocratic Oath can be considered null and void."It appears that my opponent is confused between the classical oath and the modern oath. Again, I cited the classical oath simply for additional support, it is the modern oath this is in full effect for all modern physicians. The modern oath does not go against abortion or surgery, only the classical does, so pro's claims are false. His whole point here was that the modern oath supposedly goes against two practices that are widely accepted, so that nullifies the credibility of the oath. This may be so for the classical oath which is not enforced, even though many doctors still adhere to it, but it is not so for the modern oath, where therapeutic nihilism, and transitively PAS is denounced. THEREFORE, without getting the readers into further semantics, the modern oath still stands, unnegated, unchanged, and just as credible as ever. So my point that the modern oath is credible evidence against PAS still stands as well.4. "Con declares that I am distorting the Oath here, as well as saying that "nothing is forced. The patient is not forced to live with it, he can kill himself independently, again, suicide legality is a whole different debate."This is not entirely true. People that generally request PAS's either aren't able to commit suicide in the conventional manners, being bedbound and terminally ill, or, to turn Con's source from round 2 into my own, they may commit suicide in much more grisly, painful, undignified, and traumatic ways"Pro asserts that just because patients may kill themselves in more painful and undignified ways, it becomes the obligation of the physician to provide a better method of death. This argument is logically unsound. It is like saying that just because a depressed individual experiencing mental and emotional pain wants to jump off a bridge, his doctor must give him lethal drugs to make the death less painful. The objective is to have patients live healthy, happy lives. If the patient wants to kill themselves, the physician has no obligation, and in fact has a duty AGAINST assisting that act. If the patient is bedridden and is hell-bent on killing him/herself, the hopsital can simply discharge him/her to his/her family. Physician help is so contradictory to the intents of this profession. 5. I mentioned the depletion of faith in the medical field that PAS would bring. On the practical level, this isn't much of an argument, but on the level of psychological implications, it is certainly something to consider. Modern medicine has been sort of a comforting hope that maybe all is not lost when diagnosed with rare or lethal diseases. Having death off the table as an option leaves the trust alive and faith a bit stronger, but when stared with such a simple (even though it is not easy) final option, the drive and the faith is weakened. Death may be a consideration for some patients, but should not be for the profession. PAS must not be granted U.S legality, lest the "there is always another way" attitude of the medical community die in the process. I ask the readers to consider the effects of PAS.1. Opens the gate to many unnecessary deaths2. Opens the gate to tremendous corporate and governmental corruption3. Contradicts both the sworn modern oath and the respected classical oath of Physicians 4. Weakens the drive and attitude of ascention in the medical field5. Demeans the value of livesI will let the voters judge for themselves whether these important side-effects outweigh the gain. I will, once again, thank DetectableNinja for creating and executing a very challenging and educational debate. Thank you all for reading.