Euthanasia -Formal Debate?

[Jaywalker]

Choose a position from the two given below. This thread should be more about showcasing your debating skills rather than stating your core beliefs so only the two positions given can be taken. No gray areas.

Proposition:
-The medical community should give their patients the option of Euthanasia if the conditions below are satisfied.

Opposition:
-Under no circumstance should the medical community be allowed to give their patients the option of euthanasia


Conditions:
A.)Euthanasia will be defined in this debate and will be distinguished from assisted suicide by virtue of the fact that The person in question should be in a terminal condition with very little to no hope of recovery and is under severe persistent pain.
B.)The person in question should be of sound mental health
C.)The decision to opt for Euthanasia should entirely be the patient’s and must be made by him/her consciously while already suffering from the condition described in letter A
D.)Patients in persistive vegetative states with no higher brain activity (consciousness) and no hope of ever regaining them are exempt


Maybe as the discussion progresses we could formalize the rules so this would be more like a formal debate. Maybe we could have a fixed number of debaters on each side for each round with a designated team leader. The judges will be nominated by the debaters. Maybe the sides could be reversed after a set number of rounds or a new topic could be introduced. I don’t know if this is realistic or not using the pex interface but its definitely different so I think it’s worth a try. Suggestions are very much welcome

[Ischaramoochie]

for euthanasia.

[piggy]

against euthanasia

clarification question - define sound mental health? (can one be considered to be in sound mental health if he/she is undergoing severe persistent pain?)

[Ischaramoochie]

poll na lang kasi!

[eudemon]

there is such thing as against medical advice...
so option ng patients un..

for euthanasia

[Olorin]

for euthanasia

The right to death is merely an extension of our right to life. (I can't remember where I heard/read this but it pretty much sums up my position on the matter).

[Jaywalker]

Since they were the first to post, Ischaramoochie would be the team leader for the Proposition and piggy would be the team leader for the opposition ..is that ok? you may choose which debaters to consider for your side. For the initial round only 4 debaters (including the team leader) would be accepted for each side. The format would be as follows:

1st round Traditional format:
-The proposition would initiate the debate and a rebuttal would be given by the opposition afterwards. Arguments would be given alternately by the opposition and the proposition until each team member has been given the chance to give two posts.

The 2nd round would follow the cross-examination format
-The opposition would cross examine the proposition. Each team member would have to ask a member from the proposition (The cross examiner may choose whom he wants to ask) at most 2 questions and the cross examinee can only answer those questions directly and he may not ask the cross examiner any question of any sort (A debater straying too far away from the question would be given deductions by the judges)
-The proposition would cross examine the opposition using the same rules above.

The sides would be reversed in the third round
-Same rules apply. Points would be deducted for repeated arguments.

-For this round there would be 3 judges. Both sides should agree to whom they wish to give the positions to.
-The judges may only consider the arguments made by the debaters officially accepted by their respective leaders.
–The judges would only critique the arguments made by the debaters and not give their own opinion on the positions the debaters have chosen.

clarification question - define sound mental health? (can one be considered to be in sound mental health if he/she is undergoing severe persistent pain?)

For a patient to be considered mentally sound, he/she must not be suffering from clinical depression or any other recognized major psychological disorder that would directly affect the patient’s mood or perception of reality. The pain should be physical in nature

Any objections? Suggestions? Clarifications?
I’ve had little time to think about this so please point out any conflicts if there are any

[piggy]

Since they were the first to post, Ischaramoochie would be the team leader for the Proposition and piggy would be the team leader for the opposition ..is that ok?

Unfortunately, I neither have the wit nor skills to duel with the mooch.

[kenshinflyer]

Sorry, nurse-midwife here. I may be a devil nurse, but I swore to be Pro-Life.

As a midwife I swore not to harm the baby nor the mother, nor to help in abortions.

As a nurse I swore not to harm my patients nor help in bringing death to my patients. Devil Nurse ako, hinde Death Nurse.

And as a clinical instructor, it's my duty to preach the "Pro-Life" concept.

[narutrix]

for euthanasia

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by piggy

Unfortunately, I neither have the wit nor skills to duel with the mooch.

So who's up for the challenge? Anyone?...gekokujo?

I forgot. after the cross examination, each side should be given a chance to give concluding statements

[Ischaramoochie]

whoah dude... team leader? i'm just here for the food!

[bleh]

teka lang, which kind of euthanasia? active or passive? passive yung ginawa kay terri schiavo. active yung ginagawa ni Doc Kevorkian. so sa mga pro, ok ba sa inyo ang pareho?

[Jaywalker]

Ok then nobody seems to want the role. There will be no team leaders. anyway We already have 4 on the affirmative side (Ischaramoochie, eudemon, narutrix, Olorin) 2 on the negative side (Kenshinflyer, piggy) other people who wish to join the debate will be automatically assigned to negative side until all the vacancies are filled (anyway the sides would be reversed after the first two rounds). It would help if the debaters especially the newbies would read up on argument formulation in formal debates. here's a good pattern. maybe, being one of the 'elders' of the RoT , Ischaramoochie could serve as one of the judges since no one would probably want to critique his arguments.

Originally Posted by bleh

teka lang, which kind of euthanasia? active or passive? passive yung ginawa kay terri schiavo. active yung ginagawa ni Doc Kevorkian. so sa mga pro, ok ba sa inyo ang pareho?

see letter D in post #1

This probably wouldn't work ….if it doesn’t work let’s just make the thread a free for all

[st.anger]

im pro but i'll probably just be lurking

[bleh]

yes Jay, what i mean is, the method. a patient refusing medication is different from asking to be terminated by the doctor. the consequences are different as well (other than a dead patient). don't wanna be an a$$ but we need clear parameters for a structured debate.

in case a patient expresses that he/she should be deprived of further treatment should he/she go in a coma (happens in terminal cases), should the doctor respect that wish and defy the Hippocratic oath? this is one debate.

in case a patient who's conscious and requests the doctor to administer anything to terminate his/her life, should the doctor do it? this is another direction this debate can take.

so for the sake of structure, which is it?

[Jaywalker]

yes Jay, what i mean is, the method. a patient refusing medication is different from asking to be terminated by the doctor. the consequences are different as well (other than a dead patient). don't wanna be an a$$ but we need clear parameters for a structured debate.

Yes but the argument is from outside the perspective of the patient so the question is not whether a patient has the right to kill himself or not but whether doctors or society should allow or help the patient to end his life if it is within their power to prevent it

in case a patient who's conscious and requests the doctor to administer anything to terminate his/her life, should the doctor do it? this is another direction this debate can take.

This is the actual gist of the debate. Should doctors allow their patients to consciously choose the option of euthanasia and help them exercise their will, if the conditions in post #1 are satisfied.

in case a patient expresses that he/she should be deprived of further treatment should he/she go in a coma (happens in terminal cases), should the doctor respect that wish and defy the Hippocratic oath? this is one debate.

This has actually been addressed in post#1 letter C. “The decision to opt for Euthanasia should entirely be the patient’s and must be made by him/her consciously while already suffering from the condition described in letter A.”
If he or she is not yet suffering from the condition described in letter A, then it is irrelevant if he made the decision to opt for euthanasia or not in advance –at least from the opposition’s perspective.

I’m actually for Euthanasia but just because it’s more challenging, I’ll be joining the opposition. I’ll post my introductory arguments in a couple of days.

[freakster2k1]

I think the debate is worthless, because the debate tackles on the objective position of the argument, whereas each case ought to be taken indepently from each other. Whereas, the debate will entail a set principle, that will be universal in its nature; such principle is detrimental to the very fabrtic of our being, that we are subjective beings, with different degrees of tolerance to pain and stress.


And thus, this debate will try to push one side of the spectrum against its opposite; with hope that one side will emerge 'victorious'.


And thus, to consider such debate will be futile; it will assume that moral principle is necessary; a position i dont hold-- moral values lie not in the ACT (such as Euthanasia) but on the relationships we have with people being affected by the act.


Will you feel the same if Euthansia is practiced in the Netherlands, and in your own home?

[bleh]

in case the patient refuses medication, mabilis na yon eh. in the real world, anyone can do that, basta wala nang pambayad o pambili ng gamot, tapos na usapan. so ganon na lang. walang gamot. euthanasia na yon. gustohin man ng pasyente mamatay o hinde.

mas maganda sana usapan kung active euthanasia eh.

at the end of the day, it's the doctor's decision. so it's pointless to talk about whether or not a patient should even ask to die.

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by freakster

I think the debate is worthless, because the debate tackles on the objective position of the argument, whereas each case ought to be taken indepently from each other. Whereas, the debate will entail a set principle, that will be universal in its nature; such principle is detrimental to the very fabrtic of our being, that we are subjective beings, with different degrees of tolerance to pain and stress.


And thus, this debate will try to push one side of the spectrum against its opposite; with hope that one side will emerge 'victorious'.


And thus, to consider such debate will be futile; it will assume that moral principle is necessary; a position i dont hold-- moral values lie not in the ACT (such as Euthanasia) but on the relationships we have with people being affected by the act.


Will you feel the same if Euthansia is practiced in the Netherlands, and in your own home?

The very reason the topic was chosen was because it lies in a moral gray area and there is no immediate objective method of analysis that could resolve the issue on the surface.
It’s not like free will vs determinism or creationism vs evolution where you may use scientific analysis to determine which side is closer to being right
It’s up to the debater to deconstruct the topic into areas that could be more objectively scrutinized. Simply saying that euthanasia is immoral is obviously inadequate since morality is subjective. Relating a particular aspect of an act that is supposedly immoral to an act that is generally accepted by society, I think, is the proper way to maneuver around this kind of a discussion.
I’m not claiming to be master debater here. In fact I’m still just trying to learn from the veterans of the RoT but it’s still obvious to me that it’s only the person who has little experience or creativity in argument formulation who would view the topic as “worthless”

Originally Posted by bleh

in case the patient refuses medication, mabilis na yon eh. in the real world, anyone can do that, basta wala nang pambayad o pambili ng gamot, tapos na usapan. so ganon na lang. walang gamot. euthanasia na yon. gustohin man ng pasyente mamatay o hinde.

mas maganda sana usapan kung active euthanasia eh.

bleh medjo makulit yata tayo ngayon. Sinabi ko na ngang active euthanasia

at the end of the day, it's the doctor's decision. so it's pointless to talk about whether or not a patient should even ask to die.

Really it should be the doctor’s decision not the patient’s?! That’s pretty warped bro