Date: Jan 10th, 2017
Motion: THB that life-extending medical procedures should be denied to the terminally ill
Role: Chair (opp.)
As the Leader of the Opposition, I’m going to offer a broadside against the motion of the govt., and I’m not even trying to rebut anything at this point. If I frame the debate as the captain of my ship, others after myself may go into detailed dismissals of the proposed motion.
The Principle of Care and Medicine When we consider patients at a hospital, care does not differentiate between healthy & sick, well & ill people among the inmates. Life in itself is incurable, and set to end after a century or so. One may die at 27 or 117, but most people die somewhere in between. Besides, medicine is meant to help people in all circumstances. If people such as criminals, lunatics or prisoners are entitled to care, why should the terminally ill be somehow inferior to them? Hell, they torture people in Guantanamo; I can’t now remember whether it was an island or a piece of land, but even the prisoners at Guantanamo get treatment if they get unwell. So, if they are entitled to that care, why shouldn’t those be treated who are terminally ill?
Animal Testing Here I’m going to contradict myself a little after what I just said, but I think that life-extending procedures extended to the terminally ill would reduce the amount of animal testing that we need. If medical procedures, and especially experimental treatments are tested on terminally-ill patients, as they will die anyway, we lessen the burden on animals, and so forth on our conscience. The terminally ill are a special-interest group. They may act as ’guinea pigs’ for medical research, but for that purpose we need their written permission, their signature. We in the opposition would rule out those who are non compos mentis, as we cannot consider them eligible to make this kind of choice. We think that organisations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) would approve of this stance of ours, as not so many real guinea pigs would be needed to be tested, if humans tested their own ”poisons” on themselves.
Finally, I will delve into the repercussions of this proposed bill, should it be passed:
Freezing of Eggs/Tadpoles/Bodies If we consider any kind of medical procedure of a life-extending nature to fall under the jurisdiction of this motion, it would also affect the business of artificial insemination, which is not insignificant in scale and scope any longer. A dying person’s last hope may be a child to be delivered after his or her passing, in which case it would very cruel to snuff out the possibilities for this. For, if a person was diagnosed as terminally ill, then that person would surely be denied the right to donate or receive sperms and eggs, the activity which revolves around banks that put them in nitrogen tanks as a form of life-extension. Moreover, the prospects that cryogenics offers are even more daunting (to the government). Some individuals may opt to bypass this silly piece of legislation-to-be altogether in allowing their bodies to be frozen for the time being or into the far future, so that they could be cured later on, when this particular piece of legislation has passed (into oblivion) and/or there is a working clinical procedure to cure their ailment.
For these reasons, I’m asking you to reject this proposal of the government. I’m looking forward to hearing my colleagues (Niko, Alexis and Ella) continue in the same spirit.
Puheen kesto: 7 min 19 sek
Arvio: Puhe on roolissaan napakka, kipakka ja loppuaan kohti väittelylle ominaisen science-fiktiivinen, vaikka jotain muutakin olisi varmasti voinut lopetukseen käyttää. 15 minuuttia prep timea ei vain ole kovin suosiollista luovalle ajattelulle. Kokonaisuutena puhe on hyvä, ja siitä olikin muiden helppoa jatkaa.