args

Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

Prelude I want to thank my opponent Zaradi for accepting this debate. He's a fantastic debater and I look forward for an excellent and an exciting debate. I was inspired to initiate this debate as I research further and learn more about democracy, freedom and justice. But I also want to give credit to FourTrouble who defeated me on a separate debate (unfairly of course ;) ). Some of his counter arguments were very valid and had a significant influence on this debate. Framework As per the resolution in the first round, this debate is not about whether Assisted Suicide should be allowed or not. This debate is about whether laws to prohibit or to allow Assisted Suicide should be applicable to everyone, or to only the terminally ill. There are four possible scenarios on how Assisted Suicide laws can be applied: 1. No laws pertaining to Assisted Suicide exist, and would therefore be permitted. 2. Laws exist that prohibit Assisted Suicide. 3. Laws exist that permit Assisted Suicide to everyone. 4. Laws exist to permit Assisted Suicide to the terminally ill, and prohibit it from the rest. The first three scenarios are clearly universal, so they are not necessarily the subject of this debate. I am arguing against the fourth scenario, where some have the right to Assisted Suicide and others don't. Overview: Why the Terminally Ill? In the fourth scenario, Assisted Suicide for the terminally ill is considered justified by a certain legislative body. This means that the legislative body agrees that the terminally ill have the right to die and the right of self determination. It also suggests that the legislative body agrees that those who feel loss of autonomy and loss of dignity [1] are justified to request for Assisted Suicide. My objection however is that it shouldn't be limited to only the terminally ill and should be made available to everyone. I will demonstrate my case below: Contention 1: Undermines Equality and Infringes on Human Rights Overview of Equality in a Democracy Equality is the main ingredient of democracy. Political scientist Thomas Christiano writes "[D]emocracy […] requires that each person's interests ought to be given equal consideration in choosing the laws and policies of a society. This approach begins with Thomas Rainsborough's observation that 'the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he.'" [2]. This is why equality is engraved in the constitutions of virtually every country around the world. In Canada (I'm Canadian), Article 15 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" [3]. This is reiterated in Amendment XIV of the US constitution [4], and Articles II-80 and II-81 of the European Union constitution [5]. Undermines Equality This law clearly discriminates against those who are not terminally ill. The law is basically stating that the terminally ill have the right to die and right to self determination, but others should not have those rights. It undermines equality as the terminally ill are privileged with certain rights, while others are denied these rights. This is not simply a theoretical argument. There are others who are not terminally ill, but also demand the right to assisted suicide. An elderly couple wanted assisted suicide and they weren't terminally ill [6]. A mentally ill Canadian wants access to Assisted Suicide [7]. Now there is a Swiss group that wants Assisted Suicide for the elderly [8]. How can it be justified to allow it for only the terminally ill, when others have the very same reasons that justified permitting it for the terminally ill? The disabled, the mentally ill and the elderly may also feel loss of autonomy and loss of dignity. These are subjective measures that are defined by the people themselves. Anyone has the right to feel loss of autonomy and dignity and may wish to die. Preventing them from Assisted Suicide undermines their right to equality. If one assists someone who is not terminally ill to die, they may face significant punishments. It violates the freedom of choice of other citizens and infringes on their human rights. Therefore, I argue that equality necessitates that this law should be either made available to everyone, or banned altogether. That's because everyone is equal under the law. In other words, the law is blind. If Image failed to load, here's the link [http://www.debate.org...] Contention 2: Undermines the Human Value of the Terminally Ill By stating that the terminally ill are permitted to die, but others citizens shouldn't be permitted strongly implies that lives of the terminally ill have less worth and are expendable. Basically, it sends a message that it's ok for the terminally ill to die. After all, they don't have much left in their life, right? They would be considered as burdens to the society. We shouldn't care for them as much. They are basically inferior to other humans. There is a definite risk where the society would be less willing to provide for their healthcare and health research. And if the society devalues the human worth of the terminally ill, it would be much more likely for the terminally ill to be bullied into assisted suicide. A study published by the Centre for Policy Studies said: "Society’s most vulnerable risk being bullied into an early death by greedy or uncaring relatives or bureaucrats" [9]. However if the right to Assisted Suicide is applicable to everyone, the human value of every person would remain the same. No one is better than another. A law that treats everyone the same, values everyone the same. Therefore when the greatest physicist Hawking said that he would consider Assisted Suicide in a Q&A [10], why do you think someone even asked him the question in the first place? Most people know the great contributions that he has given. But to imagine that despite all his great contributions, someone would ask him this question because of his illness was very upsetting to be honest. But if everyone has the same right, regardless if they have the right to die or not, the terminally ill would no longer be singled out. Thank you for reading. I ask my opponent to kindly wait until the third day before posting his round. We have a long weekend in Canada and I will have limited access to a laptop. Sources [1] Stephen Dilley, Nathan J. Palpant, "Human Dignity in Bioethics: From Worldviews to the Public Square", pp. 270 https://books.google.ca... [2] http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu... [3] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... [4] http://www.archives.gov... [5] http://www.unizar.es... [6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [7] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... [8] http://www.theguardian.com... [9] http://www.irishexaminer.com... [10] http://www.theguardian.com...