READ THE REBUTTAL FOR THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE CASE TO LEGALIZE PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DEATH IN THE U.S.

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 of whether this is a compelling case that wins against the affirmative side that wants to legalize PAD.
• Consider the following issues when reaching a decision.
  1. Did the negative speaker show that significant disadvantages will result if the resolution is adopted?
  2. Do the harms of the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of adopting the resolution?
• determine what the BEST argument presented 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.