Transcript of Model Debate (Euthanasia)

 gxfjbkAppendix E:

Transcript of Model Debate (Euthanasia)

 

Proposition Speaker 1 – Stephen

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today’s motion is that euthanasia should be legalized and we in the Proposition side will convince you that euthanasia should indeed be legalized. Now, first I would like to define our motion and then I would like to introduce the arguments that myself and my partner will be putting forward on the Proposition side.

Well, first let’s define what euthanasia is. Euthanasia, which is also sometimes known as assisted suicide, is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “ the bringing about of a gentle and easy death in the case of an incurable and painful disease”. But, as we know, dictionary definitions have their limitations and there’s some disagreement about what euthanasia is. For some people it means that, with the patient’s consent, a doctor will inject lethal drugs into the body of a terminally ill patient - someone with, for example, cancer. Someone who’s still conscious and able to communicate the desire that the doctor should help them to end their life. In other cases the patient is not conscious - is in a coma or a vegetative state, and the patient has either said earlier, while still conscious, or members of the patient’s family have said that they want the doctors to shut off the life support systems, the feeding tubes, the breathing apparatus, any of the medical machinery that’s helping to keep people alive. So, we have two forms of assisted suicide. One is active, where the doctor does something to end the life, for example, injecting drugs. Another, where the doctor stops doing something, stops providing help from machines or feeding tubes or other such things….. Which form of euthanasia are we talking about? Which form do we think should be legal? Well, we think both should be legal. We think that any time that a terminally ill patient wants to die they should be allowed to do so by whatever means are necessary.

Now let me sum up the proposition case. I’ll be explaining to you why human beings have the right to choose how and when they die. And my partner will be talking about how the legalization of assisted suicide or euthanasia can be beneficial to affected families, and maybe even in some situations the legalization may reduce the number of cases of euthanasia.

Well, we on the proposition side believe one very important principle. We believe that every human being has the right to life, that this is the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. But what do we mean by rights? Well, whenever there’s a right there’s some element of choice involved. For example, the right to speech means that one has the right to remain silent at times. The right to vote brings with it the right to not vote, to abstain from voting. In the same way, the right to choose to die is built into the right to life. And a lot of societies recognize this. For example, in the Netherlands voluntary euthanasia was legalized in 1983, and about 3,000 people per year request it. In some American states, for example, Oregon, physician-assisted suicide is legal. In this case doctors give patients the drugs that patients can use to end their own lives if they wish to do so. Now you’ll hear some arguments today opposing euthanasia because of the so-called negative consequences that is has. But, I ask you, in the Netherlands for 20 years they’ve had euthanasia and yet we don’t hear any public outcry in that country and there’s a good reason for that. The reason is that euthanasia is moral, it’s ethical, it’s right and it should be legal. Thank you.

 

Opposition Speaker 1 - Priscilla

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We on the Opposition side firmly believe that euthanasia should not be legalized. First I would like to challenge our opponent’s definition of the term euthanasia, and then I would like to outline our arguments. The Proposition have come up with a definition which allows everyone to die or to be killed provided they’ve got an incurable disease and have asked for death. All of us have got an incurable disease! It’s called life! We’re all dying. When are you going to kill me? Tomorrow, or can I have another five years?  What about the patients who are already in a coma and have not thought to ask a member of their family or to write down their wish to be allowed to die? Are we going to kill them or not? Sometimes patients revive after many years.

In response to the previous speaker who said that every human being had the right to life. There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent you have the right to change your mind. You are allowed to speak after you’ve made that choice. If you decide that you want to vote for one party at this election that does not bind you for the rest of your life to voting for that party. You can change your mind. However, if you ask to be killed, to be put out of your misery, then there is no going back, you cannot change your mind. In the recent case of Terry Schiavo, who you may have heard about, an American woman who suffered a heart attack and was kept alive for 15 years, becoming progressively worse apparently, her husband said that she had told him that if she was ever in that situation she wished to be let out of her misery. Her parents, however, disagreed with him and said that she had changed her mind after that conversation. But the judge chose to believe her husband and that woman is now dead. She didn’t have the right to change her mind. Freedom of choice doesn’t curtail, stop the responsibility to preserve life. The over-emphasis on choice and freedom may sound good but it often leads to disastrous outcomes.

I would also like to return to the Proposition’s assertion that there were no cases of abuse after the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands. In any case, are we going to take the Netherlands as our pattern for a good society? They have also legalized prostitution and drug use and I don’t think we would want that in our country. A couple of physicians who do advocate suicide, that is Van de Mas and Van de Val published a study in 1990 which said that 50% of Dutch physicians suggest suicide to the patients. How do they suggest it? Do they say “it would be a good idea if you died now”, or “we need the bed”? This sort of suggestion is immoral. And how many patients would opt for assisted suicide on the advice of a doctor when they might otherwise have continued fighting their disease? This is a disturbing piece of research.

Our main argument that opposes the motion is that the advances made in medical science and technology can prolong life and alleviate pain. Nowadays, medical care is immensely flexible and it helps to preserve the quality of life as far as possible. There is no reason for terminally ill patients to be in pain. Even at the very end of the course of their illness it is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is, of course, terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as possible and medical science has made it possible for them to do this with far less pain than previously. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to vote for the Opposition. Thank you.

 

Proposition Speaker 2 - Christine

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. According to the Opposition, terminally ill patients suffer little pain due to the advances in modern medicine. This is rubbish. Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. It’s nonsense to say that these people suffer little pain. This has been brought out in articles, for example, in the Journal of Pain Management which reported that, especially during the last four weeks of life, 60 to 90% of patients reported moderate to severe pain at “an intensity sufficient to impair physical function, and mood, and sociability.” Twenty-two out of the 90 patients questioned openly discussed the possibility of suicide. Four requested euthanasia.

 

The Opposition has suggested that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain. However, this is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. Physical pain may be alleviated but there are other types of pain involved. There’s the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death. There’s the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life. Also, regarding a doctor’s duty - a doctor has to address his patients’ suffering. It’s his key role. The doctor will, as a result, already some doctors will already be helping their patients to die. Some doctors are ardent campaigners of euthanasia, such as Dr, Jack Kevorkian and therefore even though it’s not legal, suicide, assisted suicide does unofficially take place in many cases. It would surely be far better to recognize this and bring the process out into the open where it could be regulated. That way it would be far easier to limit true abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and also incidents of involuntary euthanasia.

In some instances, debilitating illnesses can even destroy the minds of terminally ill patients, which is the essence of ourselves, of course. And also the huge amounts of medication required to control pain will often leave patients in a delirious, incapacitated state. Faced with this, surely it is more humane that people who are terminally ill be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and be allowed to die with dignity.

           

Another argument in support of the motion - it regards suicide as being a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy, often a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain behind can be catastrophic. Whereas by legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families may have been unaware of the true feeling of their loved ones and being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allow the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: family can understand the reasons behind their decisions without feelings of guilt or recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.

For these reasons and those of my partner I firmly believe that euthanasia should be legalized.

Opposition Speaker 2 - David

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The second Proposition speaker would have us believe that legalized euthanasia would somehow be beneficial to the families of those people. However, we must strongly disagree with this point.  Demanding that a family member take part in such a monumental decision as the life and death of a loved one is an unbearable burden. Many people may resent – many family members may resent that a loved one actually wants to take their own life and because of this these members may become emotionally scarred or even become estranged from the member of their family who wants assisted suicide. So, in a way it can destroy families, not make them closer.

Also, assisted suicide introduces a new danger and that danger is that the terminally ill may be pressurized into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness and by this I mean other family members who are not prepared to support them through this illness. Even the most well-regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this kind of situation did not occur.

In addition, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy for both families and hospitals. Firstly, families may think that they don’t have enough money to either pay for or care for their dying loved ones, and may therefore pressurize their loved one to accept assisted suicide. Likewise, members of the medical profession who only have limited resources may pressurize patients to accept assisted suicide so these resources can be saved and used elsewhere. To protect against these abuses, therefore, we argue euthanasia should remain illegal.

Now I would like to turn to another argument against the legalization of assisted suicide and that is that it’s vital that the doctor’s role not be confused. When a doctor becomes a doctor they have to take an oath, a solemn vow, a promise and this is called a Hippocratic Oath. And it comes from a man called Hippocrates who wrote in his book, “Epidemics”,  the following line: “When a doctor can do no good, he must be kept from doing harm”. By this he means that killing another human being is a wrong thing for a doctor to do under any circumstances. Now, doctors take this oath seriously. If we allow assisted suicide they would have to break this promise and we believe this is unacceptable. Of course, it’s not just about the doctor breaking his oath, it’s also about the consequences for doing that in the wider general community. The medical profession would lose a great deal of the public’s trust if they started to kill patients under their care. And admitting killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s job would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it.

Also, unscrupulous doctors would be able to kill their patients with less likelihood of detection. This might sound like a ridiculous idea but recently in the UK a doctor called Harold Shipman was put in prison for murdering 15 people, 15 elderly patients, possibly up to 400 people died because of him. With so many potential assisted suicides taking place, if we legalize euthanasia, this kind of situation would be even more difficult to detect.

For these reasons we do not support the legalization of euthanasia.

Proposition Speaker 1 (Rebuttal) - Stephen

Well, ladies and gentlemen, the second speaker of the Opposition has given me so much to rebut it’s difficult to know where to start. He began by mentioning that asking families to take part in decisions about euthanasia would be an unbearable burden, that family members might be emotionally scarred. Well, I would suggest that having a terminally ill family member will already be an unbearable burden, they’ll already be emotionally scarred. I think his point is frankly irrelevant.

He went on to suggest that euthanasia “may” become a cost-containment strategy that families “may” think they can’t afford to keep their family members alive. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I “may” become the president of France. The fact is that “may” is simply not good enough in a case like this. If the opposition can’t demonstrate that something is going to happen, then their “may” I just counter by saying “may not”.

He mentioned Hippocrates and the Hippocratic Oath. Well, it might interest him and it might interest you to know that only 60% of American doctors take that oath and that there are other little elements in that oath,  like, for example, a physician is prohibited from using the knife, cutting into the skin, doing surgery. A physician is also prohibited from teaching women the arts of medicine. So, so much for Hippocrates.

And finally, he suggests that if doctors kill patients we won’t trust them. Well, I think he’s making rather an alarming assumption here, which is that patients will assume that doctors will just be killing left and right with no regard for patient wishes. The whole point, our whole point is that if patients wish to die they should be allowed to do so and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should support the Proposition. Thank you.