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 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.
• 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.