Can you please help make draft a debate outline for Physician-assisted death should be federally legalized? Argument Brief: Three (3) well structured and developed arguments for each side All arguments must consist of a claim, grounds/evidence, warrant (Toulmin model) Three arguments for the Affirmative (AFF) side and three for the Negative NEG side Prepared AFF and NEG Speeches (1AC & 1NC) Must prepare for the first AFF constructive by covering Stock Issues and definition. (at least 300 words) Must prepare for the first NEG constructive by including responses for potential affirmative arguments (Anticipate what AFF might say) and disadvantages to the AFF’s solution. (at least 300 words) Refutation Brief: Prepared refutation for two possible arguments from each side Two refutations for AFF side and two for the NEG side A set of two (2) potential cross-examination questions for each side: Against the NEG — (2) prepared questions Against the AFF — (2) prepared questions Minimum of six (6) outside sources. Sources should be: Credible and Current. Sources should be as recent as the topic requires. Cited appropriately and accurately. Include citations in debate, outline, and work-cited page. Outlines will be checked for plagiarism; consequences will be enforced. The proper use and crediting of information accounts for part of your debate delivery and outline grade. Works Cited Page and in-text citations (MLA or APA format) EinnaMarie Macavinta Professor Kwack Honors Communications 104 25 April 2021 DEBATE OUTLINE PART ONE 1st Affirmative Argument: ? Source Citation: Coggon, J., & Miola, J. (2011). AUTONOMY, LIBERTY, AND MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING. The Cambridge law journal, 70(3), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197311000845 ? Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535760/ ? Description: Legalizing physician-assisted deaths in the United States would give respect for a patient’s autonomy. Autonomy, being the independence or control that exists, or the governance that a person has over their own actions and decisions. In the United States, it is realized that the patients have governance over their own medical decisions and as well can be able to make decisions on the type of medical decisions that they will accept in their lives or rather their bodies. This also includes the medical procedures that they don’t want to forgo as well. And since patients in the US have this form of governance, legalizing physician-assisted deaths would be seen more so as a benefit, given that it increase the options patients may possibly have in regards to what they would want to do with their owns bodies. Also, given that the patient does provide and give informed consent all the while understands the type of risks that are connected to this medical procedure this would not be considered an immoral nor to say the least, unethical act. 1st Negative/ Refutation: ? Source Citation: Why Assisted Suicide Must Not be Legalized. (2018, May 29). Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://dredf.org/public-policy/assisted-suicide/why-assisted-suicide-must-not-be-le galized/ ? Link: https://dredf.org/public-policy/assisted-suicide/why-assisted-suicide-mustnot-be-legalized/#few-helpe ? Description: Legalizing physician-assisted deaths in the United States does not give any respect for a patient’s autonomy. Offering the option for a patient to end their life for a medical basis goes against the code of healing. If legalizing physician-assisted suicide occurs, then the role of the doctor changes in the healthcare industry. Offering to help someone die is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that a doctor should be a healer. There would always be the threat of having medical professionals one day extend to other population groups other than the terminally ill, including patients who are vulnerable or classified as incompetent. Placing the responsibility to end the life of a patient in the hands of a physician is a step from which we can never really go back. It would also lead to a philosophical slippery slope, in that normalizing euthanasia would mean legalized murder. Acceptance of physician-assisted death will eventually lead down a “slippery slope” into acceptance of active euthanasia, including its voluntary, non-voluntary, and/or involuntary forms, through psychological and social processes that warp a society’s values and moral perspective of practice over an extended period of time. 2nd Affirmative Argument: ? Source Citation: Schüklenk, U., van Delden, J. J., Downie, J., McLean, S. A., Upshur, R., & Weinstock, D. (2011). End-of-life decision-making in Canada: the report by the Royal Society of Canada expert panel on end-of-life decision-making. Bioethics, 25 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01939.x ? Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3265521/ ? Description: Legalizing physician-assisted deaths in the United States would help in relieving the suffering of irreparable patients. In the event that after medical examinations as well as many medical procedures the patient is still undergoing a lot of suffering as well as lots of pain, this is where Physician-assisted suicide takes place but now with an informed decision to the patient the risks and as well the benefits of this procedure and therefore this serves to be able to save such a patient from experiencing too many pains. Also, legalizing physician-assisted deaths would also mean a cost-effective and safe medical practice. Given that the Physicians obtain consent from their patients to end their life, this would be a sufficient “insurance policy” to ensure that no patient dies in excruciating pain or unrelenting misery. Advocates argue that euthanasia/assisted suicide is similar to pain management since both use powerful medications and patients’ deaths are occasionally hastened unwittingly as a side effect of the medication used in palliation. They also say that doctors often indulge in covert euthanasia/assisted suicide and advocate for legalization as a way to protect marginalized patients from the existing “unregulated” practice’s abuses. Recognizing concerns about possible violations, proponents promise that “protective protocols” would protect the vulnerable from wrongful death while also allowing suffering patients who are eligible for euthanasia/assisted suicide to have a peaceful “death with dignity.” 2nd Negative/ Refutation: ? Source Citation: Pereira J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 18(2), e38–e45. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v18i2.883 ? Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/ ? Description: Legalizing physician-assisted deaths in the United States does not always guarantee in relieving the suffering of irreparable patients. The medication given in a physician-assisted suicide does not always work Although the prescription is lethal a significant majority of the time, legalizing physician-assisted suicide does not guarantee that the action will complete itself successfully. Many laws do not know how to cope with this circumstance when it occurs either. Also, by legalizing this, it would mean a leeway within the laws and more so possibly, abusing it to its limits. Many believe that legalizing physician-assisted deaths would put too much power in the hands of doctors, who could abuse their position. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide only works when doctors are willing to provide this service for their patients. Some in the profession believe that when healing is no longer possible for a patient, then the quality of their death should become a priority. Finding a way to relieve that person’s suffering should be the role of the physician. No patient should ever be coerced into the idea of taking their life in this manner, just as a doctor should have the option to opt-out of this service if it goes against their moral code. Requiring a physician to write a lethal prescription goes against the nature of this idea in the first place. Types of Argument & Grounds Ch. 6 & 7 DEDUCTIVE REASONING ? Top down reasoning ? General to specific ? Syllogisms- a formal, logical type of reasoning ? Example: ? Major premise: All humans are mortal ? Minor premise: Socrates is a human ? Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal ? Example: ? All parents care about their children’s safety. Hence, my mom… INDUCTIVE REASONING ? Bottom-up reasoning ? Specific to general ? Situation A + Situation B + Situation C = Conclusion ? Can lead to hasty generalizations ? Example: ? My friend Michelle, Kim, and Rob were Communication Majors and they all got into law schools. Communication must be a good pre-law major. ?The model has six components: TOULMIN MODEL Argument = claim + grounds + warrant ?Claim ?Grounds ?Warrant ?Backing ?Modality ?Rebuttal We’ll focus on the main 3 components CLAIM ? Claim: conclusion of argument ? A statement you are asking the other person to accept. ? Either change of action or change of thought. ? Opinion not fact ? Ex: It is warm outside NOT the sun is hot GROUNDS ? Grounds: foundation or basis for claim ? The support for your claim ? Facts/statistics, testimonies, examples, narratives GROUNDS EXAMPLES ? ? ? ? EXAMPLE: Technology is distracting in classrooms. For example, the person who sits in front me is always on imessage during the lecture. NARRATIVES: If you keep lying, people will stop listening to you at one point. The boy who cried wolf kept crying wolf when there was no wolf so when he cried wolf when there really was a wolf, no one believed him. TESTIMONY: Weed is good for people with chronic pain. According to researcher Mark Ware, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia and family medicine explains that it helps reduce pain and helps patients sleep better. FACTS/STATISTICS: America has too many mass shootings. According to gunviolencearchive.org, there has been 66 mass shootings in the United States in 2020 already. Answer each question and use grounds to support your position. PRACTICE 1. 2. 3. 4. Does technology make people bad at face to face communication? (example) Is caffeine good or bad for you? (expert testimony) Should people stop vaping? (fact/statistic) Does hard work always pay off? (narrative) WARRANT ? Warrant: the inferential leap that connects the grounds to claim ? Inferential leap: implicit/unspoken reasoning Exercise #1: TOULMIN MODEL EXERCISE ? Claim: My neighbors car is on fire ? Grounds: There is smoke coming from my ? neighbors car Warrant: Exercise #2: ? Claim: Writing notes are better than ? ? typing notes Grounds: Studies show that writing notes are better for memory than typing Warrant: . O O . O Debate Outlines Requirements: Each individual must submit ONE outline that includes: Argument Brief: Three (3) well structured and developed arguments for each side All arguments must consist of a claim, grounds/evidence, warrant (Toulmin model) Three arguments for the AFF side and three for the NEG side Prepared AFF and NEG Speeches (1AC & INC) o Must prepare for the first AFF constructive by covering Stock Issues and definition. (at least 300 words) Must prepare for the first NEG constructive by including responses for potential affirmative arguments (Anticipate what AFF might say) and disadvantages to the AFF’s solution. (at least 300 words) Refutation Brief: Prepared refutation for two possible arguments from each side Two refutations for AFF side and two for the NEG side A set of two (2) potential cross-examination questions for each side: o Against the NEG – (2) prepared questions o Against the AFF – (2) prepared questions Minimum of six (6) outside sources. Sources should be: Credible and Current. Sources should be as recent as the topic requires. Cited appropriately and accurately. Include citations in debate, outline, and work-cited page. Outlines will be checked for plagiarism; consequences will be enforced. The proper use and crediting of information accounts for part of your debate delivery and outline grade. Works Cited Page and in-text citations (MLA or APA format) . O . ?? STOCK ISSUES Helps us analyze propositions of policy Arguer for the policy has a burden of proof (AFF) Arguer against the policy has burden of refutation (NEG) Stock issues consist of: ill, blame, cure, cost AFF is responsible to cover ill, blame, cure NEG is responsible to cover cost Purchase answer to see full attachment Tags: controversial issue person voluntarily ends their own life administering a lethal substance assistance of a medical practitioner Diseases and incidents User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.