Some might not, but I never suggested forcing anybody to pay for it.
A inequality in palliative care in places around the world is not enough to justify its circumvention. If anything, the option of PAS not only decreases the growth of the success some palliative care has been able to prevent, but it will prevent it's growth in the future as well. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is merely a part of the debate about improving end-of-life care.
It cannot be viewed as a quick and easy fix, or a way to protect patients from inadequate care arrangements. Too many people still suffer needlessly, often because doctors and families just do not know how to serve people who are dying.
The main problem lies with a lack of knowledge. Many suffer because doctors fail to provide adequate medication for pain. To legalize physician-assisted suicide would make real reform, such as better pain control, less likely. And ultimately hurts the growth of the medical industry.
Without the reform of pain medication, patients end up with no prospects to live well while dying. In this scenario, making suicide an option is not offering a genuine choice but instead forcing a decision on the patient who again loses rights under this plan the affirmative have presented.
How to Save a Life In addition, if there are those whose death is inevitable who would like to be put out of their suffering early, it means that doctors will have a chance to examine their vital organs to see if they can be donated.
At later stages of many terminal illnesses, organs are severely weakened and, in some cases, failing - it may not be possible to use them at that point.
This will help alleviate the long waiting list there is for organ donations. More thanmen women and children are waiting for organ transplants in the US alone with only 14, eligible donors. PAS is an effective and ethical avenue to decrease this vast and fatal gap.
Regardless of whether or not a patient decides to under PAS, they have already made the decision to be an organ donor, or not, well before the procedure. There has not been a correlation shown between the number of people willing to be an organ donor if they underwent PAS From the Oregon studies.
We would also say that a push for organs would decrease the amount of care given even with a PAS. Because now the focus is not on the patient but on their organs.
In the status quo, people who are registered donors are at times kept on life support against against their will, something we though, the proposition did not like to determine the organs sustainability for transplant.
Finally, if patients who have been cleared for PAS under the guidelines set out by the proposition, then they are already terminally ill, and thus, have failing organs already, not in good enough condition for transplant.
Since we on the proposition are on a similar pursuit as Michelangelo in creating a masterpiece, lets first look at what supporting physician-assisted suicide is not: The opposition has stated time and time again how palliative care can be a good thing but just needs reform.
This offers no direct clash with our plan and our line of argumentation throughout the entire debate. We recognize that palliative care as a viable option for patients, but we also have pointed out some of the pitfalls of palliative care and how PAS can be a benefit to those who have to suffer in these pits in some countries currently.
Reform can be achieved in both PAS and palliative care under our plan. Fundamentally, we respect the preference of the patient to choose whichever option.
The proposition is on the side of options and a death with dignity for citizens. While this concern is certainly respectable, it is based simply on predicative fears. These fears have been discredited with the empirical evidence that we have provided from countries and states in which PAS is already supported.
It is time to break free from the shackles of these ideals into a world where citizens are individually empowered by supporting the right-to-die. Day by day more and more governments and citizens are recognizing this right and are strongly disavowing the antiquated positions that our opposition has argued for.
Both sides agree that laws can indeed change, but when should these laws should change is where the debate lies. We refuse to maintain archaic laws in which the consent of the patient and expertise of the doctor is largely ignored.
We believe that to support PAS is supporting a flexible and ethical system that can address this complex situation with the patient and doctor in mind and at the forefront. We do not support an atmosphere where the state destroys options and makes the decision for its citizens, especially on the most sacred thing a person has, life.
We are not advocating a vast increase in quantity but rather a quality increase in organ donation. We have stated that if these terminally ill patients are forced to live prolonged lives, vital organs will become increasingly weaker even if the disease does not directly affect specific organs.
The system allows organ donation to be completed more efficiently, effectively and even at all in some cases.Euthanasia of non-terminally ill people There is much controversy over whether euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) should be permissiable for those suffering from depression, chronical illness and other conditions that are not life-threatening.
The debate is over whether "The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want". Letting the terminally ill use any drug they want doesn't . A bill being considered in the Canadian province of Quebec is stirring debate over the right to die with dignity.
The proposed law would allow terminally-ill people to choose whether to ask their. Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds for those who do want to get better.
If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the beds and care of those that do. Essay about The Debate Over Euthanasia. Words 5 Pages. The Debate Over Euthanasia The controversy over euthanasia has recently become highly publicized.
However, this issue is not a new debate. Society has voiced its opinions on the subject for hundreds of years. have been stricken with a terminal illness, or be in a state of constant.
The debate in Belgian parliament over whether to officially expand the scope of the euthanasia law continues. The deaf twins, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, are buried in the local cemetery in Putte.