PDA

View Full Version : Debate Club: Euthanasia


bunny
08-14-2009, 06:31 AM
A friend of mine has an impeding debate on euthanasia. She is arguing (by random draw) that euthanasia should not be legal. She is a few days away from this debate and is looking for help in her argument. I'm copying her post as she was looking for any feedback to help her position.

The folks around here are some of the best debaters I have encountered so I'd like to see what you can do with this.

Bear in mind she is in first or second year university (I'm not sure which). I've given her some feedback already, but I'd like to see what you all make of this.

Please note, she is doing this for in class debate purposes only, so any emotionally charged responses should be held back. I'm posting this only to help her in her attempt to build a strong argument.

Assisted Suicide debate: Share
Yesterday at 11:11pm
This is what we have so far for our debate.
The debate is Monday.

If you have any arguments against our points please bring them up, as they will help us to prepare.

If this is an emotional topic for you, I will not be offended if you don't bother to read it.

Thesis statement:

Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath "Äbove all do no harm" Which is an oath that all physicians as healers must swear to.which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor will I advise someone of a plan which may cause his death.”

English Common Law from the 1300s until the middle of the last century made suicide a criminal act in England and Wales. Assisting others to kill themselves remains illegal in that jurisdiction. However, in the 1500s, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of "torturing and lingering pain".

Euthanasia is illegal in almost all countries at present.
There are several reasons for this

including the devaluation of human life, family members or others might be influenced over
monitary gain, and some cases doctors may be wrong, and obvious concern of people is that
they will be terminated without their consent, and would otherwise continue to live a healthy
life, a life they consider worth living.

The concept of euthanasia has been
talked about in the court system many times, yet the same conclusion is always reached through
due process "assisted suicide is morally unsound.

" People who are depressed or emotionally
unstable will be coaxed into taking the easy way out instead of checking into a hospital and
wracking up a medical bill. Medicine these days is whitout a doubt expensive, but this
expensive is small in comparason to the value of human life. One of the common worries in the UK
about voluntary euthanasia, according to the university of London study: People will feel pressured
into volunteering either to avoid being a buden on the state or their families. One account of this tendency for emotionally unstable people is the story of Henk Dykma who in 1993 was diagnosed with a case of HIV in a heart wrenching story, it is explained:
in 1993. Henk Dykma had asymptomatic HIV infection. Fearing future afflictions that might befall him, Henk asked his doctor to kill him. The film shows the doctor telling Henk that he might live for years at his current state of seemingly healthful living. When Henk still proclaims a desire to die, the doctor speaks with a colleague but never consults a psychiatrist or psychologist. He then helps kill Henk on July 28, a date, we are told, which had symbolic importance for the patient.

This killing, like those of the anorexic young woman and the bereaved mother, was clearly not a matter of last resort, as the guidelines claim to require. Henk and his doctor did not explore all other options available to him before ending his life. Indeed, psychiatric treatment, which might have alleviated Henk's obvious anxiety about being HIV-positive, was never even discussed or attempted. Nor was Henk advised of the steps that could be taken to alleviate his suffering should he fall ill. The doctor didn't even wait until Henk had actual symptoms of AIDS. There is a word for that level of care --abandonment --and it demonstrates the utter hollowness of the Dutch protective guidelines.


If laws are passed to legalise euthanasia, first it starts with a concentual assisted suicide
then as physicians become more and more comfortable with relieving suffering, and the general
populace starts to see it as the norm, it might be taken further and used as a way of opening
hospital beds, effectively devaluing human life. The doctors may just even over step their
boundries and pressure their patients into accepting euthanasia as a means to speed up the process
or even start administering assisted suicide without consent.

The journal of medical ethics has documented this slippery slope in the Netherlands where euthanasia
is legal.The study concludes that the practice of voluntary euthanasia remains beyond effective control.

20% of 4500 cases of reported euthanasia occurred in the absense of the patient's request. Even though
this is one of the conditions of legal acceptance in the Netherlands.

17% of assisted suicide doctors said that alternative pallative treatment options existed, but, euthanasia
was carried out reguardless, contrary to the legal guidelines.

Legal controls in the Netherlands that were supposed to be implemented have been excessively ignored. This
creates a sense of mis trust in the system among people that would have considered assisted death.

Legalization has done little to actually protect people from involuntary euthanasia, so we see no reason for it.
Ian Robinson, Calgary sun
Columnist had this to say, "Compassionate homicide. That's as sensible a concept as
"loving rape"
REBUTTAL:
-Our opponents have mentioned that the original "greek meaning"of euthanasia means easy death
but,We ask: is the greek word for someone whose death was hastened by a doctor eg:
with lethal injection. In greek or english that word is pronounced "murder"
- The only demographic that supports assisted murder is the emo or scenester population. If euthanasia was made legal with out a doubt our music scene and artistic aspect of North American living would be changed. It has long been known that depression and art go hand in hand, if it is made so simple to escape one’s troubles, what would they have to write about?


- (people have the right to die) - people have the right to die even if they do not ask to do so.
-

bunny
08-14-2009, 06:33 AM
All structure errors are mine because of copy/pasting. Please do not hold them against the core arguments.

Brynja
08-14-2009, 06:48 AM
She must touch on the concept of slippery slope as well and the idea that over time many (not all things but certainl one like euthanasia) can be habituated over time.

So I understand a terminally ill persons desire to die on their terms, their death is imminent. Or a family member wanting to spare their loved one (with their consent) from the ravages of say ALS....where does it end once we have habituated to it?

Granted there are people who focus their lives in bioethics for this but smething worth considering

bunny
08-14-2009, 07:36 AM
Oh, awesome, Brynja, debate master!, rushes to the front. Thanks so much!


She must touch on the concept of slippery slope as well and the idea that over time many (not all things but certainl one like euthanasia) can be habituated over time.

I thought this part of her argument effectively touched on slippery slope and habituation.

The journal of medical ethics has documented this slippery slope in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal.The study concludes that the practice of voluntary euthanasia remains beyond effective control.

20% of 4500 cases of reported euthanasia occurred in the absense of the patient's request. Even though this is one of the conditions of legal acceptance in the Netherlands.

17% of assisted suicide doctors said that alternative pallative treatment options existed, but, euthanasia was carried out reguardless, contrary to the legal guidelines.

Legal controls in the Netherlands that were supposed to be implemented have been excessively ignored. This creates a sense of mis trust in the system among people that would have considered assisted death.

Is there something more she could add to this in your opinion?


So I understand a terminally ill persons desire to die on their terms, their death is imminent. Or a family member wanting to spare their loved one (with their consent) from the ravages of say ALS....where does it end once we have habituated to it?

Granted there are people who focus their lives in bioethics for this but smething worth considering

This was my suggestion to her as a counter argument... not a legalization but a unhappy medium, perhaps. Does this mesh with what you are saying?

Is it possible for a don't ask don't tell style system to occur within the MD community. When there is a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that death will occur in the near future (less than 2 years) and that the time leading up to it will be painful (eg multiple surgeries) or humiliating (brain degeneration) to the patient and the patient is still of sound mind but not of sound body to end things for themselves that euthanasia makes sense. In those situations does the hypocratic oath mean that doing no harm includes ceasing the inevitable and unnecessary pain?

I don't necessarily believe what I posted in the above quote, but I'm trying to build an argument for doctor approved euthanasia that need not necessarily be legal (or read as: open season on the disabled)

TiQuinn
08-14-2009, 07:52 AM
I thought that Slippery Slope in debating was a logical fallacy that you wanted to avoid. A leads to B which leads to C, therefore everntually A leads to Z.

bunny
08-14-2009, 07:53 AM
I thought that Slippery Slope in debating was a logical fallacy that you wanted to avoid. A leads to B which leads to C, therefore everntually A leads to Z.

But didn't her example in the Netherlands cover how the slippery slope argument became a reality?

Name Lips
08-14-2009, 08:02 AM
I've heard the statistic that 80% of an individuals medical costs are accrued in their last year or two of life.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, skipping those final years makes perfect sense.

TiQuinn
08-14-2009, 08:05 AM
But didn't her example in the Netherlands cover how the slippery slope argument became a reality?

Not necessarily. With a slippery slope, you are making the assumption that all steps that led to an undesirable conclusion will actually occur again. In the case of the Netherlands, all someone has to do is point out that stronger laws and oversight may've prevented the problems, thereby derailing the slippery slope.

Under actual debate rules, it's very possible that she could get dinged for making that argument.

bunny
08-14-2009, 08:17 AM
Not necessarily. With a slippery slope, you are making the assumption that all steps that led to an undesirable conclusion will actually occur again. In the case of the Netherlands, all someone has to do is point out that stronger laws and oversight may've prevented the problems, thereby derailing the slippery slope.

Under actual debate rules, it's very possible that she could get dinged for making that argument.

I don't think regular debate rules will apply in her class, but thank you for pointing that out. I'll pass that along.

Dacke
08-14-2009, 09:36 AM
Not necessarily. With a slippery slope, you are making the assumption that all steps that led to an undesirable conclusion will actually occur again.
If you don't like Slippery Slope arguments, you will do poorly in class, drop out of school, commit crimes, go to prison, and die of AIDS.

tleilaxu
08-14-2009, 09:43 AM
argument:

even if we accept that suicide may relieve the suffering of some people (reduction of pain constituting a 'good'), legalizing euthanasia is not necessary as people are already free to (and do) kill themselves. therefore, the 'good' resulting from legalized euthanasia would be negligable, while the negative affects of legalized euthanasia (presumbably previously described by the debator) would be unmitigated, resulting in a net-negative for society.

Utrecht
08-14-2009, 09:46 AM
Another element that may or may not hold water for her personally is the religeous angle -

All major Western Religions are built of the principle of respecting life, and that these religons are the the foundation (along with Greek thought) of Western ethical beliefs - a couple of quotes from the Koran/Bible would be not be far wrong there - effectively arguing that there is a moralistic imperative against euthenasia.

Now I would use the Moral argument at the beginning of the discussion - using it as the foundation for the legal arguments you laid out above.

Lady_Acoma
08-14-2009, 02:21 PM
One could argue that euthanasia is already in effect and legally.

Euthanasia by means

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, chemotherapy in cancer, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means. An individual may use a euthanasia machine to perform euthanasia on himself / herself.

This quote is frankly taken from wiki, but I went looking upon thinking of it in relation to myself.

I had a living will that had a DNR for a while. Even before that and currently I have one that says if I cannot live without machines that they should pull the plug.

While not actively assisting in my suicide don't think that these things did not come to mind as an easy way to only go so far in my own suicide attempts and then have someone else have to make the choice.

Crappy thought process and way to treat your loved ones, but still.

bunny
08-14-2009, 06:45 PM
Another element that may or may not hold water for her personally is the religeous angle -

All major Western Religions are built of the principle of respecting life, and that these religons are the the foundation (along with Greek thought) of Western ethical beliefs - a couple of quotes from the Koran/Bible would be not be far wrong there - effectively arguing that there is a moralistic imperative against euthenasia.

Now I would use the Moral argument at the beginning of the discussion - using it as the foundation for the legal arguments you laid out above.

The debaters agreed beforehand that religion and children were not going to be brought up in this debate.

Is there a cultural moral code that would be more fitting. Another friend suggested that because western society believes in the rights of the individual over the community, and assisted suicide is most often found to be supported by cultures that have a stronger community focus (her example was Inuits leaving elders too old to care for themselves to die in the cold, and the shame that the elders would feel being a burden on the community).

Is there a way to re-phrase the morality argument to reflect the notion of individual rights within a society rather than religion?

bunny
08-14-2009, 06:55 PM
A friend of mine did an oral report on this subject in grade nine. I've since lost contact with her, but in her report she referenced a specific case study where the individual was very ill, in a lot of pain and not in their right mind. The patient requested assisted suicide and was denied. Remarkably (and against the doctors' predictions) the patient made a full recovery.When the illness had passed the patient could not recall having asked to die and was grateful the doctors had denied the request.

I have no idea what this patients name was or where he or she is from. If any of you have heard of this case and could point me in the direction of a name or town that would be great.

I really wish I'd paid more attention to that oral report 15 years ago.

Brynja
08-14-2009, 09:42 PM
I thought that Slippery Slope in debating was a logical fallacy that you wanted to avoid. A leads to B which leads to C, therefore everntually A leads to Z.

Yes but one cannot deny that it does occur, regardless of how neat and tidy logicians want it to be :D

Name Lips
08-14-2009, 09:52 PM
It is an intersting question though.

Who owns your life? Who has the right to make decisions about it?

The argument against euthanasia is that, sometimes, your life is more valuable to society than it is to yourself. So society has more of a right to determine what happens to you than you do.

That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Megamieuwsel
08-15-2009, 01:28 AM
Dying, just like living, is a right.
A fundamental and unalienable one at that.

In my will: If I, for whatever reason, am no longer capable of expressing my wants and needs coherently(I hope I translated that right...) and there's no realistic chance of recovery to the point where I am I DEMAND to be euthanised.

No way in hell I'll end up like a vegetable!

Megamieuwsel
08-15-2009, 01:46 AM
And I'd like to see the source for these "numbers" on the Dutch cases and also know why several searches for "Henk Dykema"(and varieties thereof) +Euthanasia yield ONLY results in just a few US-based websites with an obviously religeous agenda and this very forum, all referring to the illustrous "documentary", of which no trace is to be found.
I smell fish of a not all too fresh nature here...

Edit: Searching for "Henk Dykema" +documentary yields one(=1) more result; another refference, nothing more.

Nice touch: NO search, using the dutch phrases yielded anything!
Given that the biggest party here, which also happened to be in the gouvernment-seats for the past 40 years or so, is the CDA; A Christian-based party.
If such a case ever would've happened there'd be a stink of epic proportions here.

Pigs in Space
08-16-2009, 08:34 AM
Also, god said NO.

You're only allowed to kill people if they beleive in slightly different fairy tales than you. Then... genocide away.

Name Lips
08-16-2009, 10:06 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32419749/ns/health-health_care/


Aussie quadriplegic man granted right to die
Case adds to growing international arguments over euthanasia

CANBERRA, Australia - Christian Rossiter has proven his legal right to die and declared himself a champion of other quadriplegics who no longer find life worth living.

An Australian state Supreme Court ruled Friday that a nursing home in the west coast city of Perth must respect the 49-year-old patient’s decision to starve to death.

His case adds to international arguments among euthanasia advocates, religious groups, lawyers and ethicists about where the state’s duty to preserve life ends.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

“I’m happy that I won my right to die,” the former stockbroker and mountaineer told reporters from his nursing home bed where he is fed by a tube.

Rossiter claimed an Australian legal precedent, saying now “similar quadriplegics can choose whether they want to live.”

Legal gray area
The case in Western Australia state sheds light on a gray area in Australian law: patients have a right to refuse lifesaving treatment but helping another to commit suicide is a crime punishable by life in prison.

The nursing home sought a court ruling on its legal culpability before agreeing to Rossiter’s repeated requests to stop feeding him.

Comparable cases in other countries have generated heated national debate.

In the United States, comatose Terri Schiavo died in 2005 after her husband prevailed over her family in an eight-year court battle to remove her life supporting feeding tube.

Courts repeatedly blocked the efforts of her parents, Congress, Gov. Jeb Bush and his older brother, President George W. Bush, to resume her feedings.

Last week, Britain’s top court ordered the government to draw up rules for when it will and won’t prosecute assisted suicide.

Dozens of Britons have killed themselves in the past decade in clinics in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, but no one has been charged under British law with helping them travel there.

Rossiter told his one-day court hearing Friday that he was prepared to fly to Switzerland to take a fatal drug cocktail, but that the Swiss government has been known to hold up cases like his with red tape.

Expert: No precedent set
An expert on Australian health law and ethics, Thomas Faunce, a professor at both the Australian National University’s law and medical schools, told The Associated Press that Rossiter’s case had been judged on its own merits and did not set a clear precedent.

“The judge made a determination that there was nothing that could be done to improve this person’s quality of life either in terms of psychiatric treatment or mobility,” he added.

Peter O’Meara, state president of the Right to Life Association, said he was considering launching a legal challenge to the ruling.

“We know that from our discussion with quadriplegics who are in a far worse situation than him — they were saying that if he got proper stimulus, he could change his mind,” O’Meara said.

“If it does set a precedent, we would be very much concerned,” he added.

In court, the judge said Rossiter, who broke his spine in 2004 in a road accident and was left a spastic quadriplegic after a fall last year, clearly had a right to direct — and refuse — his treatment.

Food and fluid “should not be administered against his wishes,” but medical staff must fully inform Rossiter of the consequences, Martin said.

After the ruling, Rossiter said he would take further medical advice before refusing food and water.

“There’s a possibility I could still be dissuaded,” he told reporters.

Rossiter appeared in court Friday in a reclining wheelchair with a tracheotomy tube fitted in his throat to allow him to breathe. He was accompanied by a nurse.

He told the judge he was of sound mind and wanted to die.

Lawyer Linda Black also read a statement by Rossiter to the court.

“I am unable to undertake any basic human functions,” his statement said. “I am unable to blow my nose. I’m unable to wipe the tears from my eyes.”