Motion: This house believes that euthanasia should be legalized.

I. Prime Minister
a. Story of Me Before You
b. Definition of Euthanasia
c. Classifications of Euthanasia
d. Differentiate Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (Dignitas)
e. How Euthanasia is legalized in some areas of the world.
II. Deputy Prime Minister

I first encountered the word euthanasia while watching dog videos. Wherein,
the dog who had a tumor was given superb treats as one of his last memories in life.
Euthanasia which means good death.
Have you remembered Jam Sebastian of the Youtube sensation Jamich? One
point of his life, he requested for mercy killing or euthanasia as he struggled with
lung cancer. He has gone weaker and has refused further treatment because of extreme
pain. But why wasnt he given the right to die?
At 2015, 75% Filipino cancer victims die with excruciating pain. Even at their last
dying breath, they were not given the opportunity to have a peaceful death because the
drug to at least relief their pain is not allowed here in our country. For everyones
information, opioids is a drug that could relieve pain that your usual paracetamol cant
ease. But the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 restricts doctors from using
opioids in pain management maybe because they were afraid that doctors might abuse it
when in fact they could just make regulations for such.
Ethically, doctors might be challenged because of their Hippocratic Oath that
states To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause
his death. But doctors did not do it to end a life. They did it to end the suffering of the
patient. The patient who is obviously suffering - whats a doctor supposed to do? Turn his
back?
Being trapped in our religious beliefs, we tend to generalize that the gift of life is
to live in this world. But the right to life is not merely a right to exist but it is the right to
live a life with a minimum quality and value. We, failed to realize that the process of
dying is part of life and dying is one of the most important event in a human life. You
only die once. And if the dying process is unpleasant and can cause a patient excruciating
pain to the point of condemning life itself, why wont we give them the right to shorten it
and thus, reduce his pain?
It is not moral to end the patients life because he has the right to live longer but is
it equally moral to let them live a life and suffer even longer?
 Medications such as Terminal Sedation and Double Effect are legally practiced in
some areas. For persons in extreme pain, terminal sedationmedications that induce
sleep until death occursmay ease suffering as the dying process runs its course. While
Double Effect is the administration of sedative drugs to relieve the pain of a suffering
dying patient but having the unintended consequence that might cause respiratory
depression that might cause to hasten a patients death. If youll look unto it closely, they
both have the same objection as to euthanasia and that is to relieve the patients suffering.
But what is the difference between terminal sedation and double effect, and euthanasia
morally and objectively? Why can we not just legallized it?
Before the late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, one of the most prominent
lawmaker and senator of this country and a victim of cancer, passed away, she already
proposed Senate Bill No. 1887 or the Natural Death Act which seeks to recognize the
fundamental right of adult persons to decide their own health care, including the decision
to have life-sustaining treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal
condition or permanent unconscious condition.
People often think that Euthanasia is an act of discriminating the elders, ill &
disabled and thinking them as undignified and worthless when in fact euthanasia is FOR
severely disabled people who wanted to be free of the state of contemplating how to
survive every single day cursing themselves as to how longer will they suffer? Is it fair
for one patient to be allowed to die while the other is condemned to be kept alive?
Although euthanasia is not legal for the predominance of the religious
communities and most Filipinos value the Christian doctrine, however, it is practiced by
some, mostly are from the poor segment of the country. For the reason of stopping their
loved ones suffering and avoiding expenses on medical treatments.
Lets face the reality. Our countrys medical technologies and professionals are
not entirely advanced. Common physicians have inadequate skills to efficiently cure
complicated diseases. If medications reach to the point of life-or-death matter, operations,
at times, result to failure, making all treatments paid by the relatives of the patient result
in vain.. Likewise, medical technologies are not completely available to cure various
diseases; if ever it is, it will cost a tremendous price.
If we are pro to life, why are we letting people suffer too much? Cant they have
the liberty to be free from the pain? To be away from pain? Is that okay to allow a person
to suffer more in his self and the family to suffer, both financially and emotionally with
the doubt of his survival?
Euthanasia has one and only objective, and that is to ease a patient's pain in life
with his consent. The intention is clear and can benefit the patient. Legalizing euthanasia
can aid to the ending of the pain of the patients because of their critical illness which has
their consent or their family's or the doctor's consent. It is not legalizing murder because
 murder is intentionally killing someone without justification or valid excuse, especially
the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

III. Government Whip

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law is arguably
the most important provision in all of Philippine law. It represents the most fundamental of
human rights as it protects an individuals right to life, liberty (which includes privacy) and
property from the arbitrary interference by the State.