Legalize Assisted Suicide Analysis

John Donovan, the moderator of the debate, opens with a short discussion with Robert Rosenkranz about the ambiguous nature of the motion, Legalize Assisted Suicide. As an emotional topic surrounded by legal uncertainties, the motion is declared to be troublesome and vague. After the four debaters are introduced and their credentials are stated, Andrew Solomon, a professor of psychology that is arguing for the motion, begins his opening statement. Solomon starts by stating that, as a matter of dignity and self-respect, as well as due to medical limitations that cause palliative care to be ineffective in certain situations, assisted dying is sometimes the most reasonable choice for a terminally ill person. He proceeds to give a detailed account of his experiences related to the topic; his own mother, diagnosed with cancer in her
She concludes by discussing the treatable depression and avoidable pressures that lead to the majority of assisted suicides. As the debate transitions into the question and answer portion, the panel first discusses the difference between a patient being taken off life support and a patient consuming lethal drugs. They also acknowledge the concept of a “slippery slope” and analyze whether assisted suicide is a gateway to euthanasia. Though both sides agree that an extensive psychological exam is a necessary prerequisite for assisted suicide, there is conflict over the effectiveness of current laws. It is clear that the anti-legalization debaters prioritize stopping pain by any means necessary, while the pro-legalization panel values the patient’s wishes. Finally, the debate proceeds to the closing statements. Peter Singer, advocating for the motion, reiterates that to have the option of aid in dying is something terminally ill patients deserve, because it is a person’s right to decide if life is worth living or