READ THE AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL SPEECH THAT STATES THE U.S. SHOULD LEGALIZE PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DEATH. THEN FOLLOW THE PROMPTS.

Today I stand before you with a proper belief that the United States should legalize physician assisted suicide also known as Pad. My conviction has only been reinforced after engaging with Isabella's video, where she argues against the legalization of pad. While I appreciate her perspective, I contend that legalizing pad is not only a pragmatic step, but also a compassionate choice that upholds fundamental human rights in the face of profound suffering. Allow me to articulate, i am an advocate for the legalization of pad. The discourse routing pad is indeed contentious, but it is crucial to approach this topic with the balanced view that considers both ethical concerns and the potential benefits for terminal patients, while the risks associated with pad are often violated, it is also essential to acknowledge that there are, there are other compelling arguments in favor of legalization. firstly, to address the ethical concerns about Pad, fundamentally altering medical ethics and the sanctity of life. Isabella emphasizes the risks associated with pad, and claims that they outweigh the perceived benefits. However, in an article about the morality, morality of petition, assistance, suicide, by Robert F. Ware, who is a director of the program in biomedical Ethics and Medical humanities at the University of Iowa College Medicine. He states from the perspectives of bio medical Medical Ethics and the law. A decision by an autonomous patient to abate life, sustaining treatment should be respected and carried out by the patient's physician in virtually all cases. In a similar manner. A reasonable decision by the surrogate of a non autonomous patient. To have life sustaining treatment stopped should also be respected by the patient's physician as long as the decision is based on one. The earlier known preferences of the patient or 2, a reasonable assessment of the patient's best interest. the importance of patient autonomy and dignity in end of life Decisions suggest that PAD, When it is properly regulated and implemented and aligned with ethical principles. As for the disadvantages of pad, such as threatening vulnerable patients about the pad, may pressure these individuals, like elderly, disabled, mentally ill or economically disadvantaged consider assistant debt. citing sources from Morgans. The Dignity Act regarding the reasons for this is suicide, particularly focusing on the feelings of burden. Among these patients, however, I also visited that same website again. That's Death with Dignity Act. And I found how it shows that there are very strict legal frameworks that can save our patient autonomy., prevent coercion, promote informed decision making and maintain transparency and accountability. These include eligibility, criteria, such as being an adult resident of eternal illness and a prognosis of 6 months or less until competence make informed decisions, consultations with 2 physicians to confirm diagnosis and volunteerness. There's a waiting period of at least 15 days after the request and thorough documentation reporting of the entire pad process. According to Emmanuel Spray, 16 Article, who was an American oncologist, bioethicist and a fellow and a senior fellow at the Center for American progress. He states studies have shown that the majority of individuals who participate are not Co. Owners, but rather seek it as a means and unbearable suffering that is not alleviated by palliative care alone. Furthermore, in Got Ganzini's article, whose research interests are centered in the areas of geriatric mental health and of life care issues and suicide. He states rigorous safeguards, including assessments of mental competence and comprehensive psychological support, can mitigate the risk of coercion. Secondly the undermining trust in healthcare professionals, as stated by the negative side of the argument, who are against legalizing pad, would lead to complexities in doctor patient relationships and undermine trust in health care professionals. She shares a story about Tisa Franklin, who is a patient in order to present as a case against Pad. Well, it seems to be about a medical misjudgment rather than a direct issue with Pad itself. This example does not effectively support the argument against Pad rather shown an inaccurate interpretation of text. There are also many generalizations about pad undermining trusted healthcare professionals. Without providing any concrete evidence. 4 real examples to support this clinic patients have the right to explore all available options, including Pad. Without questioning the integrity of their patients. Moreover, cases like the ones mentioned about Tisa are outliers, and they really do not represent typical scenarios where pad is considered. healthcare providers can maintain trust by providing transparent information and respecting patient autonomy. As for the point about failing to safeguard against coercion, while concerns about coercion are valid, effective legal framework protocols can safeguard against such risks. A Professor Kenneth Chamber, who is a interdisciplinary Professor of public health, sociology and ethics of the end of life at the end of life, care, Research Group in 2015 called Recipients in euthanasia and other end of life practices in Belgium. He mentions how international experiences, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, where PD. Is already legal, demonstrates that leak that strict guidelines and careful evaluations, ensures that pad is only pursued by informed and consenting patients additionally in another article in 2016, about society of critical care. Medicine by Richard Morriski, who is an academic physician who leads research at the Center for health research. He says, promoting discussions about end of life, care and improvement. Access to palliative services can empower patients to make well informed decisions. In conclusion, while there are legitimate legitimate concerns about the ethical implications of PAD. This reason is solely based on potential risks, overlooks the suffering of terminally ill patients who seek a dignified end of life, option. a nuanced approach that balances patient autonomy with the robust safeguards, can address the ethical, legal, and societal complexities associated with pad, ultimately advocating for compassionate end of life care means recognizing the diverse needs and purposes of patients facing terminal illness.

NOW READ THE REBUTTAL FOR THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE CASE

Hello! My name is Isabella. In regards to this speech I will provide a rebuttal on the acceptance of pad, which is physician assisted suicide. More depth, however, I must respectfully disagree with the arguments put forth by the affirmative side, and I'd like to share Why. firstly, let's examine the claim regarding patient autonomy. The speaker highlights the importance of autonomy and medical decision making particularly for these facing terminal illnesses. however, the right to autonomy should not extend to the sanctioning of practices that fundamentally alter the physician's role from healer to facilitator of death. While autonomy is indeed a fundamental principle in healthcare critics. It's essential to recognize the broader implication of legalizing PAD. The notion of autonomy must be balanced with the duty of healthcare professionals to prioritize life and alleviate suffering through comprehensive palliative and hospice care. This undermines the very notion of autonomy that proponents seek to uphold. in an article by Garrett Vanderwall, a professor of social medicine, and others conducted a study to obtain information about the characteristics of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to distinguish among different types of situations that can arise between the requests and the physician's decision there was a response rate of 60% and 13% is the patient withdrew the request, and or 12% is the physician who is the physician who refused to request. the speaker references Oregon's death with dignity act as a model of transparency and accountability. However, the reality of PAD. In practice is not as straightforward instances of coercion and exploitation, while perhaps not prevalent remain valid concerns that cannot be overlooked. Moreover, we must ask ourselves if legalizing PAD Truly enhances dignity and merely sidesteps the difficult but essential task of providing comprehensive end of life care. in an article by Matthew Doran, who is a palliative medicine consultant in January 2023, he wrote 3 3.3% of all deaths in Canada were referred to a psychiatrist for assessment. Likewise in Oregon, in 2021, only 2 patients out of 383 were referred to psychiatric evaluation, which is .5% and 2020, there was only one patient out of 1 88.This with data showing 3 quarters of those requesting assisted suicide report being lonely and 60% are clinically depressed. It is evident we are missing mental health as a causative factor in these patients. The argument also highlights the issue of unmanageable pain and distressed, faced by terminally ill patients. While acknowledging these challenges, we must redouble our efforts in improving access to palliative and hospice care, rather than resorting to a quick fix that could undermine the Sanctity of life itself. another article by Daniel P. Solmacy, John M. Traveline, Louise A. Mitchell, and E. Wesley Eli. In August 2,016 in the section by Louise Mitchell. She writes about the pain can be alleviated. she writes in this argument, concerns about pain was not even the second or third reason. the State's Death Affinity Act Annual Report for 2014 shows the top reason was not that. and in quotation she wrote, less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable, and loss of dignity was their reasoning, and in which is concerned, pain was ranked sixth out of 7, above only financial concerns, and included not only an adequate pain control, but also concern about it. These patients were not necessarily in uncontrollable pain themselves, however, they were concerned about it, as we all are. Moreover, the argument that PAD Promotes dignity overlooks the inherent dignity of life itself. Dignity is not contingent upon our ability to control the circumstances of our death, but is rooted in our shared humanity. legalizing PAD Risks eroding this understanding of dignity by suggesting that some lives are not worth preserving until their natural conclusion. Legalizing PAD Is not a moral imperative, it is a moral quandary. It shifts our focus from alleviating suffering to condoning premature death. critics rightly caution against the slippery slope of euthanasia, and that the potential for abuse under A PAD framework. Despite assurances of stringent safeguards, the risk remains that the vulnerable among us, whether due to societal pressures, financial constraints, or inadequate support, could find themselves steered towards an irreversible choice. In conclusion, advocating for the legalization of decision assisted death requires us to confront uncomfortable truths about the value of life and the responsibilities inherit in health care, rather than rushing towards what may seem a compassionate solution. Let us commit ourselves to truly compassionate care, the kind that affirms life's dignity until its natural end. Thank you.

Now Respond to the following:

• Use debate theory (presumption, burden of proof, etc.) and references to specific arguments and evidence in order to justify your decision.
• Consider the following issues when reaching a decision.
  1. Did the affirmative speaker establish that a significant problem exists?
  2. Did the affirmative show that current laws, programs, etc. are incapable of remedying this problem?
  3. Did the affirmative speaker show that adoption of the resolution will remedy this problem? Solvency.
  4. Did the negative speaker show that significant disadvantages will result if the resolution is adopted?
  5. Do the harms of the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of adopting the resolution?
• In addition to determining who has won the debate, you need to identify what you determine to be the BEST argument presented by the affirmative and by the negative.
  • Identify the type of argument.
  • Use the criteria we have learned to justify/explain your decision.
    1. For example: The affirmative presented a strong argument from analogy in her solvency point. This was a good analogy because the following relevant similarities between the evidence and conclusion cases . . . outweighed the relevant differences.
• Remember that only issues extended into the rebuttals can be considered when determining which side has won the debate -- has convinced you to accept or reject the resolution. Try to set aside your personal biases and knowledge about the topic (tabula rasa) and base your decision solely on what takes place in the debate.