Pro Debate – Assisted Suicide –

Introduction: Good evening, members of the opposing team, Professor Williams, and
classmates. The right to die assisted suicide or death with dignity are a few terms used to
describe physician-assisted deaths (PAD). Physician-assisted deaths/assisted suicide can be
requested by patients with a terminal illness or a prescribed medically established prognosis of
six or fewer months to live.

As the first speaker, I will briefly present the critical argument; together, we will demonstrate the
need, practicality, and benefit of assisted suicide, AKA death with dignity, and show you that the
process is a Safe medical practice (legal standards – 3rd), respects patients' autonomy, and
alleviates pain & suffering, embarrassment, and lifetime debt. ( 1.7).

Critical points – According to a 2021 National Library of Medicine journal – medically

approved assisted dying practices, which include euthanasia (youth in Asia) and physician-
assisted suicide (PAS), have expanded significantly around the world over the past 20 years. The
procedure is legal in 11 U.S. Jurisdictions, and reportedly 72% of people in the U.S. support a
person's right to die with dignity.

Prof Williams and classmates, we must remember that all assisted dying legislation includes
substantive and procedural requirements. For example, there is a minimum age, waiting period,
health condition, ongoing physician consultation, and reporting procedures.

Therefore, the mentioned takes careful planning and supervision, so why would you want to
deny an individual's choice not to suffer? Moreover, why do you promote respect for an
individual's autonomy throughout life, but you will not extend the same courtesy with how one
chooses to die in extreme medical circumstances? Do you see the double standard?

Closing - Audience, you may hear my opponents argue that there are disparities with minority
groups, question the legal standard in place, suggest mental health is difficult to gauge or lead
with personal opinions. However, please be reminded that the process is a safe medical practice,
eliminates excruciating suffering for the patient and families, and protects and promotes patient
autonomy. While living, if deemed competent, we can decide what medical interventions to
undergo. The same concept should be exercised when choosing a dignified assisted medical
death. THANK YOU! – 3.30 minutes

Safe medical practice (legal standards – 3rd),

The supreme court decided that physician-assisted suicide/ death with dignity was a matter of
states' rights; therefore, each state can decide for itself. While state laws vary, all the pro-states
have legal standards in place, and before the final decision, the patient and medical team go
through a rigid process that safeguards all involved. There is a difference between what voters
want and what constitutes sound medical practice - Most terminally ill patients who wish to
commit suicide want to do so by medical means, nonviolently, out of respect for themselves and
others - medical suicide is not easy to accomplish, dosage and timing of drug administration
matter critically.

Let's talk a bit about the pilot state Oregon. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act allows adults to
apply for physician-assisted suicide only after several physicians have determined that they have
a terminal illness that will result in death within six months. After meeting the criteria, two
people who know the applicant must witness the application. The attending physicians must
counsel the applicant on alternative treatments, explore all options, and determine if the client is
making the decision voluntarily. There is a waiting period of two weeks or more; at any time, the
patient can rescind, and the healthcare provider can withdraw their participation. Also,
Psychiatric assessments are a part of the process to ensure that the patient is competent,

Any doctor found to be non-compliant with DWDA risks losing their medical license and can
face criminal charges. The Oregon Health Authority must review a sample of records and
generate and make available to the public an annual statistical report.

The physical pain and mental anguish from which that patient will not recover do not violate the
spirit or goals of medical ethics. Moreover, there are guidelines and practices in place that allow
healthcare professionals to respond legally and ethically. It should not be about morals or oaths –
it is about a legal, medical aid enabling doctors to provide patients with a painless death with
dignity. Why would you oppose the mentioned? So far, all you have presented are opinions; as
we know, ideas are not fact-based. – I REST My Case 3.40 minutes
fear their illness is burdensome--physically, emotionally, or financially--to their families or
caretakers and the difference between what is legal and what is ethical - - ending, at a patient's
request,

Question - How do you determine if a person requesting assisted suicide is under any

cohesion by another? 

Thank you for your question. To get to the point of assisted death, the client must be on their

death bed. Literally, pun intended, as mentioned before; each client must undergo a rigorous

screening process with a competent medical team, including a psychiatric evaluation, etc.

Moreover, there is a witness component and immediate family who are screened. As mentioned,

coerced medical consent is unethical and illegal, and the client can withdraw. The freedom to

choose supports patient autonomy, and I have faith in the process of medical teams since all are

affected. Patience lacking in the capacity – coercion may become unavoidable by the next of kin

despite vigorous efforts. – physicians are not the only deciding factors – I believe I noted that it

is a team consensus. Mental health symptoms or a disability do not negate that someone is

scheduled to die in six months or less. You all failed to present the other viable options so thank

you.

Include only as needed- The argument suggests disparities in the procedure, and only the

wealthy or the dominant group can afford it. Thank you for aiding our argument and

highlighting that the services should be available to all in need. I rest my case!