Group (Cons) Against Legalization of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide.

Introduction

Good Evening everyone, my name is Asa Emmanuel, with me are my partners, Edgar and Jesus.

This evening we will be speaking on the Negative concerning the legalization of Euthanasia or

Physician-Assisted Suicide. The practice, which has been legalized in the following states,

California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and

Washington, will be scrutinized closely by my team. But, first, we would like to express our

sincere gratitude for the opportunity to present our case before this esteemed rostrum, and hope

to prove that legalization of this inhumane act will only lead to even worst atrocities in the name

science. Life, as we know it was designed like everything in this world. If something is broken

you try to fix it by any means necessary, especially the human anatomy.
Thesis

Should Euthanasia or Physician-assisted suicide be legal?

We say absolutely not!! Making this act legal will not only open doors for future “Dr. Death”

candidates, but will provide an avenue for practitioners to commit murder legally. According

Stephan Baurim, a Dr. of philosophy with the City University of New York on procon.org, (and I

quote) "Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires that physicians be the instruments of suicide aid...

The physician's task is to tell the patient...what's wrong, and to the best of the doctor's ability,

what is going to happen. The physician's job is to heal the sick, to stave off death, and to say as

best as he or she can what the future will be like for each particular patient. The physician gets to

be the helpless person's medical guide because he or she is trusted to hold the patient's good

uppermost, and the patient's good does not include death." (end of quote)

Ladies and gentlemen, it is our plan to ensure every physician is equipped with the appropriate

training and assistance, via an intricate network of highly trained psychologist, to deal with

patients considering euthanasia or seeking assistance to meet their end.

The classic version of the Hippocratic Oath, written by the Greek Doctor Hippocrates, who is

considered the “father of medicine”, has to be taken by every physician. It clearly states, “I will

neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this

effect.” Ladies and gentlemen we urge you, to join us in the fight to have all physicians stay their

hand, and above all, don’t play God.

Body

Exhibit A

Illegal in Michigan

Dr Jacob “Jack” Kevorkian

According to Wikipedia:

 Dr. Jacob “Dr. Death” Kevorkian was an American pathologist and euthanasia proponent

from Pontiac, Michigan. He is best known for publicly championing a terminal patient's right

to die via physician-assisted suicide; he claimed to have assisted at least 130 patients to that

end.

 On November 22, 1998, broadcast of CBS News' 60 Minutes, Kevorkian allowed the airing

of a videotape he made on September 17, 1998, which depicted the voluntary euthanasia of

Thomas Youk, 52, who was in the final stages of Lou Gehrig's disease. During the videotape,

Kevorkian dared the authorities to try to convict him or stop him from carrying out mercy

killings.

 On March 26, 1999, Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and the delivery of

a controlled substance(administering the lethal injection to Thomas Youk). Because

Kevorkian's license to practice medicine had been revoked eight years previously, he was not

legally allowed to possess the controlled substance.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you can clearly see, a blatant disrespect for the law and value for life.

This is a classic example of the abuse that has happened, is happening, and will continue to

happen if we legalize this practice.

Exhibit B

Sue Rodriguez Vs British Colombia (Canada)

 The most prominent case opposing this law was that of Sue Rodriguez, who after being

diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) requested that the Canadian Supreme

Court allow someone to aid her in ending her life.

 Though in 1992, the Court refused her request, two years later, Sue Rodriquez, with the help

of an unknown doctor ended her life despite the Court’s decision.

Ladies and gentlemen, again, doctors thinking they are above the law. Patients complaining of

unbearable pain, may just be exaggerations by suicidal individuals to mask the underlying

psychological problem. Is the needle the solution? No, it’s not. We need to ensure physicians are

helping patients live, not being executioners.

Exhibit C

Jeanette Hall

 Jeanette Hall of Oregon was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and told she had six months to a

year to live. She knew about the assisted suicide law, and asked her doctor about it, because

she didn’t want to suffer.

 Her doctor encouraged her not to give up, and she decided to fight the disease. She

underwent chemotherapy and radiation. Eleven years later, she wrote, “I am so happy to be

alive! If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. … Assisted suicide

should not be legal.” Unfortunately, not all doctors are like Jeanette Hall’s.

This is the type of professionalism and patient care we want to work towards ladies and

gentlemen. Doctors encouraging patients to fight, don’t give up. When faced with life
threatening diseases, patients need to understand that they will be under the best palliative care

possible. If death is inevitable, then pain is not mandatory.

We propose that all patients considering physician assisted suicide go through a thorough

psychological evaluation with our team of experts. To ensure there is complete clarification on

what the physician’s job is, to help them live, not die. To help ease their pain, not pass it on to

their loved ones. To ensure a peaceful, painless, natural death, not to be the hand of God.

Our opponents arguing the affirmative think that people have a right to choose if they want to

live or die, we think this is absurd!! With today’s medical advancements, physicians should be

discussing the methods to prolong their patients’ lives, not shortening it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we’d like to reiterate, that ending certain people’s lives doesn’t end suffering, it

just passes on the suffering to other similar people, who now have to fear they are the next

people in line to be seen as having worthless lives. It is quite sad that families are being

convinced to accept that assisted suicide is the only way to alleviate pain in terminally ill

patients. With medical breakthroughs being announced every day, it is highly unacceptable for

physicians to be entertaining talks of assisted suicide farless suggesting it to their patients. We

cannot stress enough the importance of proper psychological help. Most patients are severely

affected by the news of terminal illness to the point of mental breakdown. Therefore, any

suggestions of an easy way out would be welcomed by someone of an unsound mind. This is

why we propose a new approach. Let’s not follow the states that have taken this path and are

desperately trying to control the monster they’ve created. Help us save lives, not end them. I

thank you.
 Debate outline

Should life threatening diseases be the deciding factor for physician assisted suicide ?

Introduction:

● My partners _______ and I, Jesus Montemayor , are discussing whether or not life

threatening diseases be the deciding factor for physician assisted suicide ?

Thesis statement:

● Life threats diseases shouldn’t be the deciding factor for physician assisted suicide, since

physicians are to care and to help , not kill. To die in a dignified death of natural causes

not assist in killing.

Body

● Legalizing physician assisted suicide would “Endanger the weak and vulnerable” in other

words, humans would eventually not care about healing from their life threatening

diseases and turn to their other quick option in assisted suicide. It would also “Corrupt the

practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship.” Doctors spend years studying

and working hard to improve medicine and ways to treat people from any types of

sicknesses, and by legalizing PAS, that all hard work doesn’t really mean anything at all

now. In very rare cases their has been numerous times where people end up overcoming

their diseases. Additionally, it would also “Compromise the family and intergenerational

commitments.” for example, PAS would harm our entire culture, especially our family

and intergenerational obligations. The temptation to view elderly or disabled family

 members as burdens will increase, as will the temptation for those family members to

internalize this attitude and view themselves as burdens. Physician-assisted suicide

undermines social solidarity and true compassion. Finally, PAS would also Betray human

dignity and equality before the law by Every human being has intrinsic dignity and

immeasurable worth. For our legal system to be coherent and just, the law must respect

this dignity in everyone. Classifying a subgroup of people as legally eligible to be killed

violates our nation’s commitment to equality before the law—showing profound

disrespect for and callousness to those who will be judged to have lives no longer “worth

living,” not least the frail elderly, the demented, and the disabled. A legal system that

allows assisted suicide abandons the natural right to life of all its citizens.

Body

● For many people with disabilities, it is more often the discrimination, prejudice, and

barriers that they encounter, and the restrictions and lack of options that this society has

imposed, rather than their disabilities or their physical pain, that cause people with

disabilities' lives to be unsatisfactory and painful. The notion that a decision to choose

assisted suicide must be preceded by a full explanation of the programs, resources, and

options available to assist the patient if he or she does not decide to pursue suicide strikes

many people with disabilities as a very shallow promise when they know that all too

often the programs are too few, the resources are too limited, and the options are

nonexistent. Society should not be ready to give up on the lives of its citizens with

disabilities until it has made real and persistent efforts to give these citizens a fair and

equal chance to achieve a meaningful life.

Body

● Passive vs. Active, there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and

actively "killing." Treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die

(passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAD equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable.

Also in some cases not everybody is perfect, even doctors make mistakes , in some cases

they may make a mistake and see that the disease or sickness is bigger than what it really

is , here may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment

of pain. Although, the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable

mistakes and to improve the quality of pain and symptom management at the end of life.

Conclusion

● Life threatening diseases may be harsh and frightful, and in some cases you rather end the

pain and suffering by asking your physician to assist you in suicide. Although the right

thing is always to know you lived your life fighting in hope in getting better in a natural

way not in assisted murder, Or that your physician fought the battle with you all the way

through just like he worked so hard for to do. Amazingly you survived and now glad you

didnt go through with the assisted suicide , the doctor made a mistake in diagnosis and

turns out you are good. In conclusion , your time to go will come , do not rush it, live

while you can and fight until you can.

 Group # Cons Outline

If someone wants to die, should he/she choice? Should the government have a

say in the matter?

Introduction:

 My name is Edgar Garcia and my partners are_______________________. We are here

to discuss if someone should have the right to choose to die. Also, if should the

government have a say if someone’s chooses to die?

Thesis statements:

 The issue with choosing to die should be a part of a person’s constitutional right. Many

people feel the government should not intervene.

Body:

I. If people had the right to choose to die, our death toll would rise. People commit suicide

daily and the authorities would try to stop you from hurting yourself if anyone found out.

People die daily people suffer from illnesses, depression, and chronic pain. The

government should intervene because most of these cases could be prevented from

someone taking their own life.

 California is pushing for government assisted deaths. California has an unprecedented

legislative wave represents more than double the number of death-with-dignity bills

introduced in any year since 1995 and a 6-fold increase relative to 2014. Ultimately, this

is police responding to more suicide cases then dealing with the crime on the streets. If

any state or any country is allowing anyone to kill themselves, this makes it an

unattractive community to live in.

  Among suicide deaths the highest are students. Especially medical students, with large

amounts of student loans. Public health workers could be the key for preventing suicides.

Pearson noted that comprehensive preventive care, such as efforts to curb behavioral

health risks, could be used in health care settings, schools, and community organizations

to address risk and reduce deaths. Universities should be federally funded vs schools for

profit.

II. In addition, in some cases such as the UK the government has implemented steps to

prevent suicide and controlling how people kill themselves. The movement can act by

providing options for the public before they decide to take their own life.

 In the UK has some of the earliest successes in suicide prevention simply involved

changes that made it more difficult for people to take their own lives. Once the

government stepped in making it made more difficult for people to gain access to guns,

prescription drugs, and making individuals attend therapy with in psychiatric hospitals.

 Mental health should be a part of health care plans, but the government has not changed

the rising cost of health care. How can a person seek help if to see a doctor could be

hundreds of dollars for one visit? Suicide prevention strategies in clinical settings rely on

identification, assessment, treatment planning, and follow-up (National Strategy, 2012).

Each step in the prevention strategy requires effective communication between patient

and provider. Although little is known about the reasons why suicide is not discussed

more often in primary care settings (Feldman et al., 2007), and many factors are likely

influential, increasing provider knowledge about older men’s beliefs and attitudes

regarding what might be helpful could facilitate suicide-related communication.

  The only time a person should have the right to die and the government should not

intervene is when a personal has a terminal illness. The government should not get

involved and the patient should decide how to and when to die. “Some people may

initially say, ‘I feel strongly I don’t want to be there during the process,’ “she said. “You

have to respect their feelings about that. But it’s so important at the end of life to respect

what our patients want and create an environment where they leave the world with great

dignity and love.”

Conclusion:

Overall, allowing people to choose their own death is not in the best interest of the public,

government, and families that are involved with the person who chooses to die. The rising

death toll will affect our society negatively. The government should prevent suicides and

should not be allowed unless someone has a terminal illness.

Rebuttal

The case of Oregon

The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund(DREDF) writes:

Dr. H. Rex Greene from Oregon, stated in 2006 in his letter to the Council on Ethical Affairs:

“… the psychosomatic literature [describes] … Demoralization Syndrome, which is very

common in chronic, … life threatening illness, the features of which (hopelessness, helplessness,

and despair) fit the profile of the victims of Oregon’s law, who are consistently reported NOT to

be in pain or disabled by their allegedly terminal illness but request [assisted suicide] because of

fears of what might come in the future: helplessness, dependency, becoming a burden. Oregon in

fact has proven that the only symptom driving requests for [assisted suicide] is psychological
distress. Clearly the standard of care for depression and demoralization is not a lethal overdose

of barbiturates.”

The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund further states:

“The wish for death is a “cry for help,” a reliable sign of depression. How absurd that it would be

met with a lethal prescription. Such an act violates professional standards of palliative care as

much as if I were presented with a suicidal patient and handed her a gun or drove her to the

Golden Gate Bridge. …

What this legislation neglects is the fact that advances in palliative medicine have made it

possible to relieve … symptoms in virtually all dying patients. The argument that five to ten

percent of dying patients experience intractable symptoms relies on outdated data. (Of course,

the victims of the Oregon law were not imminently dying or suffering intractable pain; they were

suffering from depression and despair.) Those patients who are truly at the end-of-life need

access to excellent palliative and hospice care, not a lethal overdose.”

Closing Statement

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, I don’t think it could’ve been said any better. We need

to obviously move away from this practice and start treating patients psychologically.

Overdosing patients with lethal drugs is not the answer, giving them hope so they fight to live,

and making them comfortable when they face their inevitable end, are the physicians duties, they

are not here to be the hand of God. We thank you.

Citations

“3 Types of Euthanasia, Voluntary Euthanasia, Non-Voluntary, Involuntary Euthanasia.” Law

Teacher, www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/three-types-of-euthanasia-voluntary-
euthanasia-non-voluntary-involuntary-euthanasia-law-medical-essay.php.

“Ethics: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide.” BBC, BBC,

www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/.

“Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Attitudes and Experiences of Oncology Patients,

Oncologists, and the Public.” NeuroImage, Academic Press, 20 Dec. 2003,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673696916219.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” JAMA, American Medical

Association, 28 Jan. 2002, jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-
abstract/214736.

Clodfelter, R. P., & Adashi, E. Y. (2016). The Liberty to Die: California Enacts Physician Aid-
in-Dying Law. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 315(3), 251–252.
https://doi-org.libproxy.uhcl.edu/10.1001/jama.2015.16242

Wahowiak, L. (2018). Public Health Professionals Can Help Curb Rising Suicide
Rates. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1271. https://doi-
org.libproxy.uhcl.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304669

Wilson, C. (2018). Inside the plan to end suicide. New Scientist, 240(3200), 22–23. https://doi-
org.libproxy.uhcl.edu/10.1016/S0262-4079(18)31935-3

Vannoy, S., Park, M., Maroney, M. R., Unützer, J., Apesoa-Varano, E. C., & Hinton, L. (2018).
The Perspective of Older Men With Depression on Suicide and Its Prevention in Primary
Care. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention & Suicide Prevension, 1–9. https://doi-
org.libproxy.uhcl.edu/10.1027/0227-5910/a000511

Meyer, H. (2016). What California Providers Will Do When Asked to Help Patients Die. Modern
Healthcare, 46(11), 0014. Retrieved from
https://libproxy.uhcl.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cc
m&AN=113842605&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Anderson, Ryan. “Four Problems with Physician-Assisted Suicide.” The Heritage Foundation,
The Heritage Foundation, 30 Mar. 2015, www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/four-
problems-physician-assisted-suicide.
Bristo, Marca. “Assisted Suicide: A Disability Perspective Position Paper.” NCD.gov, National
Council on Disability, ncd.gov/publications/1997/03241997.

Catherine L. Bjorck, Physician-Assisted Suicide: Whose Life is it Anyway, 47 SMU L. Rev. 371
(1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol47/iss2/8

Starks, Helene, et al. “Physician Aid-in-Dying.” Physician Aid-in-Dying, University of

Washington, 9 Apr. 2013, depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pad.html. Pros and cons for
arguments of Physician aid-in-dying (PAD)