Conduct a debate on a 70 years old man with cancer of the stomach requests you to give him a drug that should end
his life (make him die). He is explaining that he wants to rest from the severe pain he is
persistently experiencing. Follow us through how you will handle his request
.One should oppose or support the motion that he should be given the drug that end his life or not.Provide with almost 8 Necessary points to backup your points.
Oppose: The 70-year-old man with stomach cancer should not be given a drug to end his life.
1) Preservation of life: The primary role of healthcare professionals is to preserve life, not end it. Assisting in the intentional ending of a life goes against the medical ethics and principles that prioritize the protection and preservation of life.
2) Potential for misdiagnosis: Diagnosing the severity and prognosis of cancer can be complex. Making the decision to end a life based solely on the patient's perception of severe pain may neglect the possibility of misdiagnosis or the potential for palliative care options to effectively relieve the pain in the future.
3) Palliative care alternatives: Palliative care focuses on maximizing the quality of life for patients facing serious illnesses, providing physical, emotional, and spiritual support. Instead of resorting to euthanasia, healthcare professionals should explore palliative care options that can address the patient's pain and improve their overall well-being.
4) Psychological support: Patients facing a terminal illness often experience depression, anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness. It is crucial to provide psychological support to help them cope with these emotional challenges rather than resorting to ending their life prematurely.
5) Slippery slope: If we allow the deliberate ending of a life due to severe pain, it opens the door to a slippery slope where other people may request euthanasia or assisted suicide for various reasons, potentially compromising the sanctity of human life.
6) Legal and ethical implications: In many countries, euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal as it goes against the legal and ethical frameworks in place. Physicians could face legal repercussions, and healthcare systems may be subject to extensive scrutiny and controversy if they were to engage in such practices.
7) Focus on finding a cure: By investing in medical research and the development of new treatments, we can strive to find a cure for stomach cancer and other terminal, painful illnesses. Ending a patient's life prematurely deprives them of the opportunity to contribute to medical advancements or potentially benefit from a cure that may be discovered in the future.
8) Informed consent: It is essential to ensure that the patient fully understands the implications and consequences of their decision before proceeding with any end-of-life measures. Comprehensive discussions should take place, involving healthcare professionals, family members, and mental health experts, ensuring that the patient's decision is well-informed and reflects their true wishes.
Opposing the Motion:
1. Upholding the Sanctity of Life: In opposition to the motion, it is our moral and ethical duty to respect and preserve the sanctity of life. Every human life is valuable, regardless of age or health condition. Choosing to end a person's life prematurely goes against this fundamental principle, even in cases of severe pain.
2. Slippery Slope Argument: Allowing individuals to request a drug to end their lives due to pain may lead to a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to potential abuse, coercion, and pressure on vulnerable individuals. We must consider the potential consequences on society as a whole.
3. Palliative Care and Pain Management: Instead of resorting to ending a person's life prematurely, we should prioritize providing comprehensive palliative care and effective pain management for terminally ill patients. Medical advancements have made great strides in successfully alleviating pain and improving quality of life, even in the most challenging cases.
4. Psychological Evaluation: When faced with a request like this, it is crucial to assess the psychological well-being of the patient. Pain can cause depression and despair, which may influence their decision-making process. Providing proper mental health support and counseling can help individuals cope with their situation and ensure that they are making an informed decision.
5. Possibility of Miracles and Treatment Innovations: Medical science constantly discovers new treatments and innovations that can significantly prolong life or even cure seemingly incurable diseases. By prematurely ending a person's life, we deprive them of the chance for a spontaneous remission or new medical breakthroughs.
Supporting the Motion:
1. Right to Dignity and Autonomy: A person should have the right to determine their own destiny, especially when they are in unbearable pain. Allowing terminally ill patients to make the decision to end their life can be seen as an extension of personal autonomy, ensuring they have control over their own suffering.
2. Quality of Life: Dying from stomach cancer can be an excruciatingly painful experience, significantly diminishing one's quality of life. The option to choose a peaceful and painless death can provide a sense of relief and allow the individual to die with dignity.
3. Empathy and Compassion: Acknowledging the immense suffering of a terminally ill person should lead us to consider their request with compassion. No one should be forced to endure severe pain against their will, and providing them with the option to end their life can be an act of mercy.
4. Legal Safeguards and Regulation: If a legal framework is established to regulate the process of assisted dying, strong safeguards can be put in place to ensure that the decision to end one's life is made voluntarily, without any external pressures. This can help prevent potential abuses and ensure that the decision is well-informed.
5. International Examples: Several countries have already legalized some form of assisted dying, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. Examining their experiences and the safeguards they have implemented can guide us in creating a responsible and compassionate system for dealing with such requests.
It is important to note that this is a highly complex and sensitive issue, and both opposing and supporting arguments should be considered carefully. Ethical, moral, legal, and medical perspectives should be thoroughly examined in order to reach the best possible outcome for patients in such distressing situations. Consulting medical professionals, ethicists, and legal experts can further inform the decision-making process.
When handling a request like this, it is important to approach it with compassion and respect for the person's suffering. Before we begin the debate, it is crucial to acknowledge that this topic involves ethical and moral considerations, and people may have different perspectives based on their personal beliefs. Let's organize the debate into two opposing viewpoints: supporting the motion to grant his request, and opposing the motion. Here are eight points to back up each position:
Supporting the Motion:
1. Compassion: Granting the individual's request can be seen as an act of empathy towards their suffering and desire for relief.
2. Autonomy: Respecting a person's autonomy and their right to make decisions about their own life, including the option to choose death, can be argued as a fundamental human right.
3. Quality of Life: If the individual's pain is severe and their condition is terminal, they may value the opportunity to end their life peacefully, maintaining their dignity and avoiding prolonged suffering.
4. Medical Futility: If all possible treatments have been exhausted and the individual's prognosis remains poor, they may argue that prolonging their life further will only increase suffering without offering meaningful improvement.
5. Financial Burden: Terminal illnesses often entail substantial medical expenses. Granting the request could alleviate both the financial burden for the individual and the healthcare system burden.
6. Palliative Care: Though not a cure, Palliative care aims to reduce pain and improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients. Providing the requested drug could be viewed as an extension of these efforts.
7. Legalization: Some argue that assisted dying should be legalized, as it allows for regulation and safeguards to ensure that the process is carried out ethically, minimizing potential abuse in vulnerable populations.
8. Emotional Toll: Witnessing a loved one in excruciating pain can have significant emotional consequences for family and friends. Granting the request may provide closure and peace for all parties involved.
Opposing the Motion:
1. Sanctity of Life: Every human life is considered sacred, and intentionally ending a person's life is morally and ethically wrong regardless of the circumstances.
2. Slippery Slope: Granting this individual's request may set a precedent and lead to a situation where vulnerable or unduly influenced individuals are coerced into making similar requests against their wishes.
3. Medical Professionals' Role: Assisting someone in ending their life goes against the principles of the medical profession, which focus on preserving life and providing care.
4. Palliative Care Alternatives: Opponents argue that investing more resources in palliative care options, pain management techniques, and psychological support can alleviate the patient's suffering without resorting to ending their life.
5. Potential Misdiagnosis: There is a possibility of misjudging the individual's prognosis, as medical knowledge and technology are ever-evolving. Granting the request might mean depriving the person of time they could have lived.
6. Mental Health Considerations: It is crucial to assess the individual's mental state, as they may be in a vulnerable position and making a decision influenced by depression or feelings of hopelessness.
7. Ethical Implications for Healthcare Professionals: Forcing healthcare providers to perform actions that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs can have profound ethical consequences and impede their ability to provide care to other patients.
8. Protecting the Vulnerable: Opponents argue that by legalizing assisted dying, the risk of abuse increases, potentially placing vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or those with disabilities, at risk of having their lives prematurely ended against their will.
Remember, this debate is intended to explore the different perspectives surrounding this topic. It is essential to approach this sensitive subject with empathy, understanding, and respect for all viewpoints.