9 minute read
An article written by two Salisbury Sixth Form students, Lena and Freya.
Does terminal illness justify the ending of a person's life? BWS VS S6C.
Bishops Wordsworths Sixth Form and Salisbury Sixth Form came together on the 12th of February 2025 to hold a debate on the subject of assisted dying, specifically, if terminal illness justifies the ending of a person's life at their request. Two students from each school prepared well-researched and laid out arguments, the third responsible for a conclusion to close each argument and prepared themselves in case of questioning from the debate spectators- consisting of the Salisbury Sixth form students, South Wilts sixth form students and Bishops Sixth form students. S6C hosted this event to engage the chosen schools and showcase the articulative, critical thinking, argumentative and analysis skills and construction of their students, in which it was successful.
First arguments
The debate started strong with Bishops, who were arguing for assisted dying, with Ben, who set the agenda of what he would be talking about. Ben raised points of quality of life, autonomy and dignity- pointing out that people with terminal illnesses are usually suffering greatly, which, as he explains, is immoral and cruel. He then goes on to explain how people should have autonomy over their own body, they should be able to make the choice they wish and that right should be taken into consideration, however, it sadly isn't. He also made reference to the thinking of Immanuel Kant. He referred to the statistic that due to current laws, 50 people go to Switzerland per year to partake in assisted dying, and up to 650 people unfortunately commit suicide to end their own pain. These statistics really emphasise the effectiveness of this argument, as it reinforces their point and, though morbid, can really speak to the audience, evoking deep sympathy within the people.
The contrasting view was delivered considerably well from Ellen on the side of S6C. She explained how assisted dying is impractical, and can be notably dangerous due to people feeling pressured or coerced into choosing assisted dying. She then mentioned how assisted dying is only aimed at a small minority of people facing very specific circumstances. Ellen’s points consisted of how assisted dying goes against the Hippocratic oath, and fundamentally changes the relationship between doctor and patient, stating, “it would ruin the trust” if the doctor has the option to offer assisted dying, possibly resulting in doctors not doing everything in their power to save someone. Ellen also illustrated the effects of palliative care, and how they are more important and worthwhile. This is due to it giving the patient a better quality of life during the end of their life. Finally, she pointed out that assisted dying would include a rise in euthanasia, which in consequence would cause a cutback on helping patients in favour of just killing them, which she expresses is dangerous and not a healthy mindset to possess.
Both sides of these views were conveyed very well, though both were structured differently, S6C and BWS both effectively voiced their points and articulated their arguments with a mixture of thought-out vocabulary and the utilisation of examples and statistics to support their
arguments. Ben and Ellen both showed a lot of respect for each other during their segments, which is hard to find in even professional settings, so was admirable to watch in an educational setting. It was also really interesting to find connections and contrasts within their speeches; such as Ellen’s great point on how assisted dying would only overwhelm an already overworked system further, but Ben’s implication that suicide cases and attempts already overwork the system, or that though someone may consent to assisted dying- what if they change their mind and can’t go back?
Second arguments
Progressing the points forward further was Mirian and Evie, who reinforced the previous points and expanded on them in rebuttal to their arguments.
Mirian responded to Ellen’s point stating that in the instance the bill for assisting dying is passed, there would be rules and regulations to control how it would be used, and who would be able to access it, claiming that the dangers pointed out are fixable. Mirian agrees with Ellen, saying that palliative care should be taken into account, however, she then goes on to say how we should increase quality of care within palliative care and assisted dying, simultaneously so the people who choose to live until the end of their life can be happy and live painlessly, but the people who wish to be euthanised can- and with peace and dignity. Mirian proposed that the fact a bill for assisted dying is being considered suggests society is concerned about it, and shows the people are considering it. She then threw light upon the fact assisted dying isn’t an old idea, and for many years people have contemplated it, as seen in different countries; in which she said the countries who have implemented it have demonstrated to us that these systems work and can be effective.
The rebuttal, delivered by Evie, expressed it has come up in parliament, but it still hasn’t been passed. This is because assisted dying goes against the sanctity of life. Evie explains further that the reason BWS is saying Palliative care isn’t so effective, is because it’s underfunded as it’s under the jurisdiction of the NHS, which provides palliative care only 30% of its funding, she then explained the rest is from charities with charity shops or charity events, like fun runs. Financial aspects could lead to the clouding of judgments of people offered assisted dying. This is because they will most likely choose the cheaper option- lethal injection. Evie then goes on to argue that there is a fundamental misuse in assisted dying, and explains a case from Canada in which a former army veteran asked for assistance with her disability, and was instead offered assisted dying. This not only shows the undervaluing of palliative care, but reinforces the previous point of healthcare being cut down in favour of euthanasia. This was an interesting argument and we especially liked Evie’s use of reinforcing the previous arguments to further argue S6C’s point.
Q&A
The debate took a short intermission to let the audience ask their own questions or express their own views. We've decided to showcase some of those questions to briefly portray the audience’s opinions and how they responded to the given arguments.
People may be pushed into euthanasia if they’re worried about money
BWS: It doesn’t matter in the UK as healthcare is free, so people’s judgement can’t be impaired by financial aspects.
What if someone goes through with assisted dying but then it turns out they didn’t have a terminal illness? Wouldn’t it be considered murder?
BWS: You won’t be able to tell once they’re dead, it also isn’t considered murder as the patient was well informed of the process and actively chose to do it. Also, considering the subject is on people with a terminal illness prognosis does not matter but if they will die nevertheless- they should have a choice of when and how.
What are examples of people being coerced into assisting dying?
S6C: There has been a case of a man who objected to assisted dying but was held down and given the injection anyway, they also gave it to a 60 year old woman with Alzheimer's who wasn’t actually deemed ill enough for assisted dying, but was given it anyway.
(Objection) BWS: This sort of case is rare, people are dying in great pain, and it’s more ethical to give them the choice than let them suffer in agony.
(Rebuttal) S6C: Getting care to make the pain more manageable and less horrible is more important than just killing them.
(Objection) BWS: The example of the man being held down is a case of murder, not assisted dying. Assisted dying VS palliative care isn’t as big of a deal as S6C is holding it to be; assisted dying isn’t a final option for everyone but instead is giving people that choice- if they want it.
The cases of people who die slowly and in pain are horrific, wouldn’t it be great if they could have the option of euthanasia?
S6C: In an ideal world, yes. However, in the real world it doesn’t work out that way, it takes too much time and money so the process wouldn’t go as ideally and smoothly as we’d wish, it’s better to give them care so they are in as little pain as possible than to give them nothing as they wait, potentially years, in pain for an injection.
Conclusions
S6C and BWS team’s did amazingly at highlighting their points and on the spot defending their stances in the face of spectator questioning. The teams closed off their debate with the third member of the team doing an unrebutted conclusion.
Harry, BWS, concluded the human aspect of death has been ignored, it’s not all about potential coercion of family because ‘they want a big cheque’, but to die with dignity surrounded by the people you love, ‘not to be tortured in a hospice’. He explained how a person could be on the highest level of painkillers, and still experience immense pain, stating that 70% of people want the end of life bill passed, further emphasising this by stating ‘it’s not about coercion or murder, but instead about choice’. Harry ends by asking, if we can choose other things in life- why not our own death?
Toby, S6C, contrasted by saying assisted dying isn’t the solution to suffering, and legalising it can undermine the sanctity of life and erode trust in healthcare. Instead of offering death, Palliative healthcare should be pushed as assisted dying can exceed our moral guidelines and bounds. Extreme sufferers must live day to day without receiving palliative care while they wait for their injection, putting them in more pain than if they were just given care. He claimed that the misuse of the procedure is morally grey and the country wouldn’t be able to produce clear cut guidelines and rules to control assisted dying properly.
With those conclusions comes the end of the debate. Though Bishops was regarded by most for having a confident argumentative structure- Salisbury Sixth Form convinced more people to their side. Both teams composed excellent arguments, and the audience was very satisfied with the debate witnessed. It sparked great conversation within the brief intermissions, with students evaluating their own perspectives and debating amongst each other. Even after the debate, students were conversing about the event and questioning each other's opinions of their newfound ideas. We personally found our opinions were for assisted dying, but were both very convinced by the points being raised against it, making us question and criticise our own perspective. Ultimately, it was evident the speaking students of the debate had created well prepared arguments, and each put in very hard work to argue for their given side. Each student articulated their arguments with great excellence, and everyone spectating held them in high regard for their work. The event was thoroughly enjoyed by everyone involved, and each participating student was very well respected.