OPENING SPEAKER- JASMINE

Ladies and gentlemen, we, on the opposite side, strongly disagree with their definition and
believe today’s motion to not be passed ,understands that sanctity of life cannot in any way be
neglected, and also it’s the government’s responsibility to make everyone 's life an important
value. Why?

Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of someone by action or

omission, with or without that person’s consent, for what are
claimed to be compassionate reasons. LIFE SHOULD BE THE
VALUED AT THE FIRST PRIORITY. Life is the aspect of existence
that processes, acts, reacts, evaluates, and evolves through growth.
Humans do not put the value of life into the physical state of mere
aliveness, but give it value through its ability to allow for experiences. Life,
as a set of experiences that are good, is what has value, and our capacity
to have them is the intrinsic value of life. Our values of life come from our
environment. Campaigning to end certain people’s lives doesn’t end suffering –
it passes on the suffering to other similar people, who now have to fear they are
the next people in line to be seen as having worthless lives.Moreover, societies
that authorize suicide as a ‘choice’ for some people soon end up placing
pressure on them to ‘do the right thing’ and kill themselves Devalues some lives.
Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead
than sick or disabled". The subtext encourages everyone that some lives are not worth
living. Not only does this put the sick or disabled at risk, it also downgrades their status
as human beings while they are alive

.When people who qualify for euthanasia were surveyed, more than 90% said it was
their “loss of control” that driving their decision, not the actual diagnosis of a terminal
illness.

The Value of Human Life

Explains three different approaches to the valuation of human life. The first,
'vitalism', holds that life is an absolute good that should be preserved at all
costs; the second, the 'sanctity of life', that it is a basic good that should
never be intentionally taken; the third, 'Quality of life', that life is an
instrumental good that has value if it is 'worth living'.

Euthanasia is a process that, along with physician-assisted suicide, is

against the law in most countries. These actions may even include a jail
sentence if an individual is convicted of this practice.
There are many ways other than just undergoing with euthanasia. And
THERE ARE also SEVERAL REASONS WHY EUTHANASIA SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL. Here
are the main ones

● Voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatments

exist
● Voluntary euthanasia denies patients the final stage of growth , and it
undermines medical research
● In addition, Hard cases also make bad laws
● Autonomy is important but never absolute
● Voluntary euthanasia leads to euthanasia tourism and it changes the
public conscience, it violates historically accepted codes of medical
ethics, it gives too much power to doctors, and it to leads inevitably to
involuntary euthanasia.

There are also several countries that illegalized euthansia. United Kingdom
(England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, & Wales) URUGUAY, UNITED
STATES, TURKEY, SWEDEN, RUSSIA, PORTUGAL, NORWAY,
FRANCE,IRELAND, AND INDIA. Terminally ill patients should not have to
suffer, but why not hold out hope for a cure?

“SINCE IN THIS DEBATE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE

VALUES AND POLICIES. POLICY SHOULD BE MADE
RATIONALLY NOT IRRATIONALLY BECAUSE OF JUST
THE REASON OF THE PATIENT’S SUFFERING”
REBUTTAL

1.We are not just looking or basing the patient’s life here. We are also
basing the doctors’ experiences.
No one should ever go through a situation where they feel like their doctor is
trying to talk them into the euthanasia process. Doctors need the option to get
out of this program just as much as a patient deserves a second option.
Doctors should strive to relieve suffering, not end the life of the sufferer; the
authority to terminate life would undermine their trustworthiness.
It is a contradiction that a doctor would swear an oath to help, save, and protect
life but at the same time have the option to take life.

2. Voluntary-
● Voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatments exist.
● Voluntary euthanasia violates historically accepted codes of medical ethics
- The International Code of Medical Ethics[5] as originally adopted by the World
Medical Association in 1949, in response to the Nazi holocaust, declares 'a
doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from the
time of conception until death'. In its 1992 Statement of Marbella, the World
Medical Association[6] confirmed that assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is
unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. When a doctor
intentionally and deliberately enables an individual to end his life, the doctor acts
unethically.
● Voluntary euthanasia gives too much power to doctors
-Ironically, voluntary euthanasia legislation makes doctors less accountable, and gives
them more power. Patients generally decide in favour of euthanasia on the basis of
information given to them by doctors: information about their diagnosis, prognosis,
treatments available and anticipated degree of future suffering. If a doctor confidently
suggests a certain course of action it can be very difficult for a patient to resist. However
it can be very difficult to be certain in these areas. Diagnoses may be mistaken.[7]
Prognoses may be wildly misjudged. New treatments which the doctor is unaware of
may have recently been developed or about to be developed. The doctor may not be up-
to-date in symptom control.
● Voluntary euthanasia changes the public conscience
The testimony at Nuremberg of Karl Brandt, the medic responsible for co-ordinating the
German euthanasia programme is a chilling reminder of how conscience can gradually
change: 'My underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help
themselves... such considerations should not be regarded as inhuman. Nor did I feel it in
any way to be unethical or immoral... I am convinced that if Hippocrates were alive today
he would change the wording of his oath... in which a doctor is forbidden to administer
poison to an invalid even on demand... I have a perfectly clear conscience about the part
I played in the affair. I am perfectly conscious that when I said yes to euthanasia I did so
with the greatest conviction, just as it is my conviction today that it is right.'[4]

He sincerely believed he was innocent. This demonstrates that once doctors start killing,
it is possible for them to carry on doing it without feeling any guilt. Their consciences,
and that of the society which allowed them to do what they did, became numbed.
3. Active euthanasia gives too much power to doctors
Ironically, active euthanasia legislation makes doctors less
accountable and gives them more power. Patients generally decide in
favour of euthanasia on the basis of information given to them by doctors.
If a doctor confidently suggests a certain course of action, it can be
difficult for a patient to resist. However, diagnoses may be mistaken and
prognoses may be widely misjudged. Active euthanasia gives the medical
practitioner power, which in turn can be abused.

Active euthanasia is also unnecessary because alternative

treatments exist. It is widely believed that there are only two options for

patients with terminal illness: either they die suffering or receive

euthanasia.

4. Hard cases make bad laws

In reality the slogan “right to die” is misleading. What we are considering is not the right
to die at all, but rather the right to be killed by a doctor; more specifically we are talking
of giving doctors a legal right to kill. This has its own dangers which we shall consider
shortly.

The European Association for Palliative Care recently registered its strong opposition to
the legalisation of euthanasia.[3] If care is aimed at achieving 'the best possible quality of
life for patients and their families' by focusing on a patient's physical, psychosocial, and
spiritual suffering, requests for euthanasia are extremely uncommon.

The answer is not to change the law, but rather to improve our standards of care.

Allowing difficult cases to create a precedent for legalised killing is the wrong response.
We need to evaluate these difficult cases so that we can do better in the future. This
was clearly demonstrated in the case of Nigel Cox, the Winchester
rheumatologist found guilty of attempted murder after giving a patient with
rheumatoid arthritis a lethal injection of potassium chloride in August 1991. Had
he been willing to consult those specialized in pain management, he could have
relieved his patient's symptoms without killing her.

5. THE PATIENT IS THE ONE WHO DECIDE

-Let’s put an instance or a case

➔ Situation example:

To those patients that have terminal illness like for example coma. Some of us
know that coma is one of the illness or a condition and it rarely lasts more than 2
to 4 weeks.However, some people kay ma abtan jud ug long duration mga 2
years or even a decade. In that problem what do you think euthanasia can be
applied to make the controversial situation produce a final analyzation to conduct
better choice or option for the difficulty the patient is experiencing? What do you
want? Magkita mo sa damgo and tell her or him nga patyon nalang siya?

What if ang patient kay na abtan najud ug pila ka years? What do you think
unsay mabuhat ana? Diba mo undergo naman jud kag euthanasia ana?

- If you are killing a person without his/her consent pwede na nato siya
matawag ug homicide. If a person kills another person in order to end the other
person's pain or suffering, the killing is considered a homicide. It does not matter if the other
person is about to die or is terminally ill just prior to being killed; the law generally views
such a killing as criminal. Thus, a "mercy killing," or act of EUTHANASIA, is generally
considered a criminal homicide. And again, “ Even doctors cannot firmly predict
about the period of death and whether there is a possibility of
remission with advanced treatment.” wa ta kabalo naa pay possibility mabuhi
ang tao. Dili nato ma dalig dalig euthanize ang person.

6. VEGETATION CASES
How can you say that we are repeating the vegetation reasoning? We’re literally
just stating one instance. Asa naman to inyohang “right to choose”?, if you are
not considering the life of the patient. Yes, naa mo sa side sa family. Although the
patient’s family asks to do it, it could be murder. They wouldn’t be able to know what he
wants to do because they are patients in a vegtative state. Still, lots of doctors just kill
them under the family’s permission. And it is against the law of human rights. Second,
there are always chances that the patient can get over the disease. Just like Carie
Coons. Only days before, a judge had granted her family's request that the feeding tube
keeping her alive be removed. Mrs. Coons's unexpected recovery has left her doctor
and family baffled. Medically, this case raises questions regarding the reliability of a
diagnosis of irreversible unconsciousness.

“SLIPPERY SLOPE”

Though the “slippery slope” is often brushed aside as a weak argument because it does
not actually happen,it is unable to alleviate the concern for what the next step would be.
According to the International Task Force, there are currently opportunities for NOT
terminally ill patients to get help with their suicides, with the only criteria being an
“unbearable illness.”. Couldn’t Tourette’s syndrome be considered unbearable?
Dementia? Paralysis? As well as stage four cancer? Who draws the line between
unfortunate and unbearable? Do teachers have the right to abuse the children? Would a
CEO ever work to decrease profits? What if, instead of protecting us, police officers
went on citizen killing sprees? It seems impossible that a doctor could both heal and
intentionally kill on the same day.

ANG FAMILY ANG FINANCIALLY SUPPORT

-Even though ang family sa patient maoy nag financially support, it doesn’t give them
the right to end the person’s life. Bisag unsa pana kadato ang pamilya or ka pobri, di
japon sila maka buot wa silay right to kill and decide what’s best or what could happen
to the person.

7. FINANCES/ ECONOMIC PRESSURE/MONEY

What if patyon nalang ang patient para dili ma waste ang money. Para dili
mag suffer ang patient ug ang family?

It was mentioned by our opening speaker about the the value and ethics of
life, such problems like financial or economic pressure is not a valid reason
to pursuing euthanasia. Just because the family is suffering downfall of
their economic state does not mean we will pursue the patient to
euthanasia. It was said that if the patient is not the one who didn’t decide
euthanasia for himself then it is an act of homicide which is a crime,
because the person who decided that is no other than the family and the
doctor. In every problem there is always a solution, because if the family is
experiencing difficult situations of economic pressure they can always find
a way like for example asking money from their relatives or finding a job
that is compatible with them.

8. The prediction of a terminal diagnosis is rarely accurate.

During a 2005 study of terminal illness diagnoses by the Mayo Clinic, they
found that only 1 in 5 patients received an accurate number. 17% of people
who find themselves in this situation live for longer, sometimes much longer,
than what the doctor initially recommends. That is why euthanasia encounters
such resistance, even when there are legal definitions in place which allow for
its use.

If about 1 in 5 people beat their diagnosis, then what else could be possible?
It might be unrealistic to expect a medical miracle in every situation, but we
should take an open and honest approach to these statistics.

9. SUFFERING SA PERSON

10. LIVING WILL

11. Autonomy is important but never absolute

Autonomy is important. We all value the opportunity of living in a free society, but also recognise
that personal autonomy has its limits. Rights need protection, but must be balanced against
responsibilities and restrictions if we are to be truly free.
We are not free to do things which limit or violate the reasonable freedoms of others. No man is
an island. No person makes the decision to end his or her life in isolation. There are others who
are affected: friends and relatives left behind, and the healthcare staff involved in the decision-
making process.

Western society no longer recognises suicide as a crime, but still appreciates that a person's
decision to take his or her own life can have profound, often lifelong effects on the lives of
others. There may be guilt, anger or bitterness felt by those left behind. Personal autonomy is
never absolute. The effect of personal decisions on others now living or in future generations
must also be considered.

Palliative care
- is focused on improving the overall wellness of people with serious illnesses. It addresses both
the symptoms and the stress of living with a chronic illness. It may also involve support for loved
ones or caregivers.

Since it’s based on individual needs, palliative care can be quite different from
one person to the next. A care plan might involve one or more of the following
goals:
 ● alleviating symptoms, including side effects of treatment
● improving understanding of illness and its progression
● identifying and addressing practical and spiritual needs
● helping to cope with feelings and changes related to illness
● assisting in understanding treatment options, making treatment
decisions, and coordinating care
● identifying and accessing additional resources to provide support

Palliative care for cancer

Cancer is one of the most common illnesses associated with palliative care, as both symptoms and
treatment can have a significant impact on your quality of life.

Palliative cancer care varies depending on:

● the type of cancer

● symptoms

● treatment

● age

● prognosis

Someone with a recent cancer diagnosis might receive palliative care to manage the side effects of
chemotherapy or radiation, or to help them recover after surgery.

Palliative care for cancer often includes treatments for depression or anxiety and tools to help family
members plan for the future.

What are the benefits of palliative care?

Some of the benefits can include:

Symptom management support, Improved quality of life, Reduced risk of
depression, Longer survival, Support in making decisions,
Who provides this type of care?
● a palliative care doctor

● other doctors, such as a respiratory specialist, neurologist, or psychiatrist

● nurses

● a social worker

● a counselor

● a psychologist

Your palliative care team will work to ensure your holistic (all-
around) well-being over the course of your illness.

COUNTRIES THAT ILLEGALIZED EUTHANASIA

China

Euthanasia:Illegal

Physician-Assisted Suicide:Illegal

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal in China under Articles 232
and 233 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China: “Article 232
Whoever intentionally commits homicide shall be sentenced to death, life
imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; if the
circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term
imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than 10 years.” And,
“Article 233 Whoever negligently causes death to another person shall be
sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more
than seven years; if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be
sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, except as
otherwise specifically provided in this Law.”

In Mar. 1994 a group of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) legislators

proposed euthanasia laws but they were not passed. In Mar. 2007, a woman
with muscular dystrophy had a television journalist broadcast her proposal for
euthanasia legislation during the NPC annual session.

Turkey

Euthanasia:Illegal

Physician-Assisted Suicide:Illegal

Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal under article 84

of the Turkish Penal Code: “(1) Any person who solicits, encourages a
person to commit suicide, or supports the decision of a person for suicide
or helps the suicide action in any manner whatsoever, is punished with
imprisonment from two years to five years.” The article includes heavier
penalties for commission of a suicide (four to ten years); encouraging
others to commit suicide (three to eight years), and encouraging someone
who does not understand the situation to commit suicide (felonious
homicide, which carries a life sentence).

CLOSING
The advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia must also look at the
doctor’s, the patient’s family, and the other people involved with the
decision.
We need to recognise that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations
where the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are properly met. As
the symptoms which prompt the request for euthanasia can be almost always managed with
therapies currently available, our highest priority must be to ensure that top quality terminal care
is readily available. Many people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is
cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request
euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved
as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being,
even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and
most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are.

SPEECH

I, the group 4 captain, would like to offer our heartfelt gratitude to the
affirmative side for elevating their pride and prejudice . For my fellow
members, who spoke up and stood up for our rights, for the midnight crams
and cries. Additionally, we would like to thank the audience for listening to
today's debate. And for Sir Castillio, who taught us the new information and
how to defend our positions.

Though we lost in today's debate, we will still continue to use our voices
and stand up to defend our sides.

LINKS/ INFORMATION
https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/cmrcr/clinical-medical-reviews-and-case-reports-cmrcr-6-
270.php?jid=cmrcr

https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=jolpi
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/introduction.shtml

https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/1/e6

https://euthanasia.procon.org/euthanasia-physician-assisted-suicide-pas-around-the-world/

Homicide - Euthanasia And Physician-assisted Suicide - Kevorkian, Person, Killing, and Considered - JRank
Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/7403/Homicide-Euthanasia-Physician-Assisted-
Suicide.html#ixzz7hoUaKZtt

https://graduateway.com/should-we-legalize-euthanasia-to-a-person-who-is-in-a-vegetative-
state/

8 Reasons Why Assisted Suicide Should NOT Be Legal | Lives Worth Living
Why Legalizing #Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is a Bad Idea
China.org.cn, “Farmer Jailed for Assisting Suicide Triggers Controversy,” china.org.cn, Aug. 15,
2011
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D4nBb6QLupp-
65DqY5nu77EhuM8FzyXcNkYnyyN2WaY/edit
https://www.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia/twelve-reasons-euthanasia-1997/
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Turkey Criminal Code,” unodc.org, Sep. 26, 2004

https://www.healthline.com/health/palliative-care#examples