Jump to content
F-22 Tradeoff

Assisted suicide aff

Recommended Posts

Will euthanasia / assisted suicide affirmatives be topical under 'social services'? I know that a lot of assisted suicide programs use drugs, and if the impoverished can't afford a cure to certain diseases -- despite health care -- it sounds like the government could help them out.

 

Serious question, too. Also, would overpopulation be potential advantage ground? I'm fond of Malthus.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will euthanasia / assisted suicide affirmatives be topical under 'social services'? I know that a lot of assisted suicide programs use drugs, and if the impoverished can't afford a cure to certain diseases -- despite health care -- it sounds like the government could help them out.

 

Serious question, too. Also, would overpopulation be potential advantage ground? I'm fond of Malthus.

 

you'd only have a localized area of impact - poverty/overpop isn't nearly bad enough in the US to have any sort of malthusian impacts. maybe in africa or southern asia you could access those sorts of impacts. other than that, nope. most overpop literature that goes beyond theory talks about the third world in particular as that's where overpop problems are. x amount of deaths in the us aren't gonna stop overpop in the third world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you'd only have a localized area of impact - poverty/overpop isn't nearly bad enough in the US to have any sort of malthusian impacts. maybe in africa or southern asia you could access those sorts of impacts. other than that, nope. most overpop literature that goes beyond theory talks about the third world in particular as that's where overpop problems are. x amount of deaths in the us aren't gonna stop overpop in the third world.

Disagree here.

 

To those who aren't as familiar with the issue, overpopulation in terms of human numbers is, at best, half the problem. The other issue (and the one that Ehrlich and company talk about more often) is consumption overpopulation - how many resources it takes to sustain a person's standard of living (or in the case of the dying, survival). In terms of environmental impact, I'm ten times as damaging as a person in the Third World.

 

But back to your claim: It's true that it wouldn't have localized impacts, but the ecological footprint of a non-productive First World resource consumer is enormous on the globe as a whole.

 

That said, euthanasia wouldn't actually kill off enough people to cause a serious decrease in resource use, so I agree that the case probably wouldn't get enough solvency to claim an advantage. It's still an interesting idea, though, even if the political impact would be insane.

Edited by Neurotic_Mastermind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Kyle, you are a poor benchmark. How much do poor people consume?

 

And, on T, I'm sure someone will have an interp that says the Aff must help poor people and that killing them (even with their permission) doesn't count.

Edited by Just Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also Kyle, you are a poor benchmark. How much do poor people consume?

 

And, on T, I'm sure someone will have an interp that says the Aff must help poor people and that killing them (even with their permission) doesn't count.

True, I probably forgot the 'living in poverty' part, but the 'in the United States' part still counts for something. Two people on their deathbed of differing income levels consume the same amount of hospital resources.

 

T could be problematic; it might be tough to find a mainstream definition that counts euthanasia as a 'social service.' Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's also illegal, which means you'd have to extra-topically legalize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of assisted suicide, you guys should just bust some babys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree here.

 

To those who aren't as familiar with the issue, overpopulation in terms of human numbers is, at best, half the problem. The other issue (and the one that Ehrlich and company talk about more often) is consumption overpopulation - how many resources it takes to sustain a person's standard of living (or in the case of the dying, survival). In terms of environmental impact, I'm ten times as damaging as a person in the Third World.

 

But back to your claim: It's true that it wouldn't have localized impacts, but the ecological footprint of a non-productive First World resource consumer is enormous on the globe as a whole.

 

That said, euthanasia wouldn't actually kill off enough people to cause a serious decrease in resource use, so I agree that the case probably wouldn't get enough solvency to claim an advantage. It's still an interesting idea, though, even if the political impact would be insane.

 

Right, I forgot to mention resource consumption. You are correct, though, in arguing that the threshold here would be pretty weak. I doubt there would be enough assisted suicides in a post-affirmative world to create a significant decrease in resource use, as you pointed out.

 

That said, most malthus impact cards (I'm thinking here of the standard Ehrlich "each life lost now is 10 saved in the crunch" card) refer pretty specifically to human overpopulation... you'd probably have to search around to find some more workable impact cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of assisted suicide, you guys should just bust some babys.

 

Most Def.

 

But in all seriousness...

Euthanasia has more to do with perpetuating the socioeconomic divide than it has to do with the relief of human suffering. Policies promoting euthanasia give the authority to determine who lives and who dies to some of the highest ranking members of the wealthy elite, doctors. Said policies would assert that the lives of the weak are worth less than the lives of the elite, only further stretching the gap between the upper and lower classes of society.

 

New World May 15, 1995 “Euthanasia” http://www.ukcouncilhumanrights.co.uk/euthanasia.html

 

There is no doubt that in times of what is known as an economic recession, itself a characteristic of the capitalist boom-bust robber economy, Britain’s hegemonic power elites consider the chronically ill and the elderly as a non-productive embarrassment, if not a downright nuisance, scarcely entitled to their tiny share of the nation’s grossly maldistributed wealth. However, before euthanasia can be made respectable, considerable time and effort must, of course, be invested in preparing the psychological ground for its acceptance by the populace. And this is, of course, where the media plays its role, its role, that is, in the manipulation and preparation of packaged consciousness. Britain’s media managers create, process and preside over the circulation of images and information which determine our attitudes and, ultimately and sadly, our beliefs. It was the anti-imperialist, Paulo Friere, who said that the manipulation of human minds is an instrument of conquest. It is one of the means by which the power elites try to conform the populace to their objectives and secure popular support for a social order that is not in the real interests of the citizenry; all alternative social arrangements are excluded from consideration. Friere went on to say that it is only when the people begin to emerge from the historical process that the elites resort to manipulation. Prior to the emergence of the people there is total suppression – the total restraint and subjection of the individual – and there is, therefore, no need for manipulation. The controllers of the social order have, since colonial times, effectively manipulated the white population at home, and suppressed the black and brown populations both at home and in the captive lands abroad. It was a medical doctor, Frederic Wertham, who said that fascism and colonialism are two sides of the same coin: colonialism is fascism abroad and fascism is colonialism at home.The normal functioning of the market system results in the permanent division of society into two broad categories of “winners” and “losers”; these divisions persist as the result of the recognition, maintenance and sanctification of the system of private ownership of productive property and the extension of the ownership principle to all other aspects of human existence. And while we are on the subject of the market system, let us identify some of the oligarchy’s newspeak/doublespeak, for example: “market economy” should read “robber baron, buccaneer, piratical dog-eat-dog, devil-take-the-hindmost economy”. “scarce resources” should read “gross maldistribution of the country’s wealth”. “no more money in the kitty” (of the NHS, that is) should read “much of the funds have been spent in paying for the hidden subsidies to the private sector and for the super-profits of the multinational pharmaceutical and medical supply industries, respectively”. “Britain is a multiracial society” should read “Britain is a multiracist society”; reference will be made in future articles to the British ruling oligarchy’s ferocious war of attrition against the intellectuals of the racial minority communities. “free choice” should read “the financial elites make the choices, and you are free to decide whether you wish to care for your health, or not”. “service economy” should read “the master-serf society of a new feudal order”, and so and so forth. No central government think-tank or cultural committee draws up secret instructions for the daily mental programming of the British people. The process is far more elusive and far more effective simply because it generally runs without central direction. It is embedded in the unquestioning but fundamental socioeconomic arrangements that first determine, and then are reinforced by, property ownership, division of labour, racial stereotyping, the organisation of production, and the distribution of income. These arrangements, established and legitimised over a very long time, have their own dynamics and produce their own inevitabilities.Doctors would doubtless play a key role in the implementation of euthanasia. This was indeed what occurred in Germany during the grim days of the Third Reich. It would do, therefore, to ask ourselves the question: what kind of men and women become doctors in Britain today? British doctors tend to demonstrate the following characteristics: academically, they tend to show a predilection to study subjects that involve a great deal of detail; they exhibit traditional attitudes toward stratification in British society; they identify with the powerful groups in society; they have a deep mistrust of racial minorities, ( a few years ago, a common saying at a famous London teaching hospital group was “ white children are born, black children are bred”); and the doctors demonstrate a tough-minded attitude toward people in general, with a lack of sensitivity to their feelings. British doctors tend to favour corporal and capital punishment and to reject attitudes of tenderness and displays of emotion. Hospital consultants regard patients as an outgroup whose needs do not coincide with those of the doctors. This pattern of attitudes and behaviour is associated with a great deal of the dissatisfaction that patients, especially racial minority patients, experience in their dealings with British doctors. Doctors may act on behalf of the state apparatus either in a formal or in an informal setting. Furthermore, many medical decisions may have important political or social implications, even though the doctor himself may be acting as an “independent” professional. A doctor may prescribe tranquilizing drugs as a means of suppressing a person’s distress with an unjust social system; a doctor may advise a person to undergo a brain operation that that may permanently alter his mental state; or a doctor may commit a person against his will to a psychiatric unit. Even in the National Health Service of the 1990’s, the British medical profession is extraordinarily powerful; self-preservation and the pursuit of power come before service; and the even more privileged inner circle of doctors enjoys great prestige, influence and affluence (total income in the region £300,000 per annum – ‘The Guardian 1 October 1992), without the need to be accountable to either their patients or the public. Dr Maurice Pappworth’s book, ‘Human Guinea-pigs’, is a classic on the experimentation that has been undertaken on National Health Service patients in Britain. Dr David Sanders in his book, ‘The Struggle for Health’, states that “…..coercion has been employed in persuading racial minority mothers both to have abortions and to be sterilized….” The medical profession was also complicit in racist ‘virginity tests’ carried out on Third World women arriving, for the first time, at Britain’s airports. ‘Women’s Voice’, March 1979, also quoted by Dr Sanders in his book, in describing the personal experience of a Third World woman who arrived at Heathrow Airport to meet her fiancé, wrote… “ I was sent for a medical examination by immigration officials. A woman told me to take all my clothes off. I was given nothing to cover myself with – no dressing gown or blanket, although I asked for one. I waited like that for twenty minutes. “Then a man doctor came in. I asked to be seen by a lady doctor, but they said no. I was most reluctant to have the examination, but I did not know whether it was normal practice here. So I signed the consent form. I was frightened that otherwise they would send me back. “The doctor was wearing rubber gloves and took some medicine out of a tube and put it on some cotton and inserted it into me. He said he was deciding whether I was pregnant now or had been pregnant before. I said he could see that without doing anything to me. I have been feeling very bad mentally ever since. I was very embarrassed and upset. I had never had a gynaecological examination before”. The test was carried out at a time when the British government claimed to have banned it. Such tests (‘virginity tests’) would be intolerable even if they achieved what they had been claimed to do. In fact they would not prove whether a woman was pregnant and might not even prove whether she was a virgin. Their purpose could only have been to humiliate Third World women. None of the medical miscreants faced either medical disciplinary proceedings or administrative tribunals or the civil or criminal courts. Medical professional bodies in Britain, themselves bureaucratic machines with the function of enforcing monopolistic practices, have done harm to the health, welfare and happiness of the racial minorities in the country. It is not entirely coincidental that the subject of euthanasia often crops up during periods of economic downturn when the allocation of supposedly scarce resources becomes the main preoccupation of medical and health administrators. It would appear that, despite the humanitarian context within which the deliberations are pursued, consideration of the subject (euthanasia) has more to do with maintaining, perpetuating and even augmenting the wealth differentials of an unequal and acquisitive society, than it has to do with the relief of human suffering. In the inter-war years, one Dr W.A. Gould, writing in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy , defended euthanasia as one way of resolving economic difficulties; he asked his readers to recall in this context the “elimination of the unfit” in ancient Sparta. In 1935, Nobel prize winner, Alexis Carrel (inventor of the iron lung) suggested in his book, ‘Man the Unknown’, that the criminal and the insane should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasia institutions supplied with proper gases. In the local debate on euthanasia between 1936 – 1941, the British Medical Journal carried on a lively debate over this question. A common view in this country then was that euthanasia should be considered an option for the (otherwise healthy) mentally retarded. The nets were widely cast over questions of who should live and who should die. In his book, ‘Marriage and Morals’ (1927), Bertrand Russell himself asserted: “It seems, on the whole, fair to regard negroes as, on the average, inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from questions of humanity) would be highly undesirable”. Racism in Britain lies at the core of every issue relating to power, economic production, culture and society. Anyone who has worked in the medical field in the Anglophone world may have had personal experience of doctors, nurses and medical attendants colluding in the death of patients, usually children, who have been extremely impaired physically or mentally. But those practices have been restrained by legal limits and strong public reaction. To kill patients, even if one were sure that they are incurable, is bad enough. Any legislation on euthanasia would not, of course, give an order to kill, but it would give the power to kill. Legislation would not give a command, but it would give an assignment of authority and responsibility to a particular group of persons, such as physicians, psychiatrists and paediatricians, for example, to kill certain types of persons. Also, the acts of evil men could be cloaked in scientific terminology, mystification, academic respectability and rationalization. It could open the door to the merciless destruction of helpless people by those who are supposed to help them. If enacted, the laws on euthanasia would supposedly apply to the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly, the terminally ill and the disabled. The laws would be asserting that the lives of the weak are of less worth than those of others. The term reserved for this in the Third Reich was “lebenunwertes leben”. Colonialistic and fascistic violence are much more solidly and insidiously set in the social thinking of the imperialists than is generally believed. Before society seeks “a change in the law”, it should confront the crucial problems, in the relation of science and medicine to society and politics, of the value of all human life versus national and social policy, and it should remember that behind all the veneer there is still a great deal of savagery in the heart’s core of imperialist and genocidist cultures.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking it wouldn't be T under "living". It has to be increased to persons living in poverty, not dying in poverty.

 

Just out of curiosity, who would decide who gets euthanized? (if that's even a word)

 

Also, possible soylent green adv?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see why you need an assisted sucide aff to solve over pop on this resolution, what about abortion and what not?

what other advantages would you get from this aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just claim major dehum impacts, i dont claim overpopulation (squad policy, just about the only thing we cant run is Malthus....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't see why you need an assisted sucide aff to solve over pop on this resolution, what about abortion and what not?

what other advantages would you get from this aff?

 

I think this would be a pretty interesting critical aff. As mentioned before, dehumanization is a possible "impact", but I would extend the concept to specific literature about allowing people the free will to decide whether to live or to die. I'm sure that you can find lots of evidence on euthanasia being a right, because there are to this day activism going on with the intention of legalizing it. Poverty is something that surrounds this topic because it is known that the groups who are driven to commit suicide in secret are usually the poor, the sick, or the elderly. The key word here is "secretly", and I really don't know how much literature you can find here. Also, a speaker came in to our health class the other day and she said that the suicide numbers are really all accross the board in terms of age and ethnicity, but she didn't mention class. I'm wondering if there's something about how the poor are more commonly driven into suicide simply because of their label: poor. That would be interesting because you could talk about the state's attempts to control the poor suicide rate. You could even find evidence on how debate about euthanasia has, in and of itself, sparked a discussion about whether killing oneself is a right of a human being. There are many authors and historians who document the history of the debate over assited suicide who talk about what sort of discussion it has sparked outside the activism. This could be a great "we demand" aff that doesn't claim fiat. Talk about how your educational discussion is in and of itself a medium through which we can escape state control over life and death.

 

As for the comment Emergency_Exit13 made, the aff would be topical under the word "living" because the social service is offered to those living in poverty. Those who use the service die as a result, but that doesn't matter because the plan is on-face topical. That's pretty basic. But as far as a policy case, I really don't see any benefit to this. To me it sounds interesting because I like to think up critical affs, but I'm not sure how much literature you can find on this that would be topic-specific or how strategic this aff would be.

 

I actually just looked up some things on euthanasia, and I found some interesting stuff talking about how the word "euthanasia" in and of itself masks killing. I could see this being a great kritik against this case because it talks about how the Nazis had a "euthanasia program" that was actually based on eugenics and killing those who were unworthy to live. These ideas later became the final solution. That's the first thing I saw about this too. If you're offering euthanasia programs to only the poor, doesn't this mean that you're essentially giving the poor a greater intentive to go kill themselves. You are, like Hitler, purifying society. I could even go to the extent to say that your euthanasia program is just hiding under the mask of the state. This means that the state can use it in any way it chooses, including an all-out genocide against the poor.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts so far on this aff. I haven't concluded yet whether or not it's a good idea to run something like this, but it's definitely an intriguing topic.

Edited by aburo
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this would be a pretty interesting critical aff. As mentioned before, dehumanization is a possible "impact", but I would extend the concept to specific literature about allowing people the free will to decide whether to live or to die. I'm sure that you can find lots of evidence on euthanasia being a right, because there are to this day activism going on with the intention of legalizing it. Poverty is something that surrounds this topic because it is known that the groups who are driven to commit suicide in secret are usually the poor, the sick, or the elderly. The key word here is "secretly", and I really don't know how much literature you can find here. Also, a speaker came in to our health class the other day and she said that the suicide numbers are really all accross the board in terms of age and ethnicity, but she didn't mention class. I'm wondering if there's something about how the poor are more commonly driven into suicide simply because of their label: poor. That would be interesting because you could talk about the state's attempts to control the poor suicide rate. You could even find evidence on how debate about euthanasia has, in and of itself, sparked a discussion about whether killing oneself is a right of a human being. There are many authors and historians who document the history of the debate over assited suicide who talk about what sort of discussion it has sparked outside the activism. This could be a great "we demand" aff that doesn't claim fiat. Talk about how your educational discussion is in and of itself a medium for which we can escape state control over life and death.

 

i would like this aff, mainly because this would be a good case to have a really sick, specific K round

I see where the rights arumentation begins, but i don't see why euthanasia in context of the class system will inherently solve any oppresion or rights abuse at the point where mere legalization would solve any other situations of discourse or rational that goes with that mindset.

What prevents the government from limiting it to certain circumstances, or using it as nothing but a cost-competitive tactic on those who use up resources?

I would prefer a critical aff on the language of "poverty" and "poor"

But i don't know, mabye you prefer to actually be topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would like this aff, mainly because this would be a good case to have a really sick, specific K round

I see where the rights arumentation begins, but i don't see why euthanasia in context of the class system will inherently solve any oppresion or rights abuse at the point where mere legalization would solve any other situations of discourse or rational that goes with that mindset.

What prevents the government from limiting it to certain circumstances, or using it as nothing but a cost-competitive tactic on those who use up resources?

I would prefer a critical aff on the language of "poverty" and "poor"

But i don't know, mabye you prefer to actually be topical

 

I agree with you that the in-round discussion would be very in-depth if the other team was up to it. I think the fact that euthanasia is not specific to the class stuggle is a great argument, especially if the case has no speicific literature on the relationship between euthanasia and poverty (which it should to make this a good case). I think when legalization becomes a counterplan, I don't see how that counterplan has any net benefit. All you are doing is PICing out of a governemnt-mandated increase. Why should I care? I kritik all your disads anyway. All I would need is one piece of evidence on why an increase is good. But let's say the argument did come down to increase good versus increase bad. You could claim that simple legalization is not enough to overcome state control because the state is not fully surrendering its power to the people. This is because the state continues to see suicide as an inherent evil, even though people are allowed to establish euthania clinics. The bottom line is that when the state legalizes it but doesn't surrender its contruction of suicide discourse, then people are still traped because euthanasia is not socially accepted. I think an increase in euthanasia clinics is a concession by the state. It's saying that the state is doing what the people want it to do, what the acitivism is calling for. I still haven't been able to do much research on this, so maybe there isn't all that much out there specifically on an increase in euthanasia services.

 

I still don't know that answer to your question though. I think this aff easily links to arguments on governmentality and biopolitics. It's that idea of the illusion of choice. The government offers euthanasia in order to satisfy the activists, but the social services are only a part of its game to disguise its power over the population. I think that the aff would claim that the discourse around euthanasia is more of prerequisite to the plan. It would be sort of like a pre-plan case (or pre-fiat, if you believe in that). You could talk about how there have been attempts to legalize it (I know for a fact that a few different states have tried it) but there has been no success because of the state's mindset. Your activism in debate goes beyond the current situation in the governement to try to reshape the way people think about euthanasia. This means that the government can't set limitations or rules. I think this argument would make sense if you had the cards to back it up.

 

Sadly, since I'm a senior this year, I won't be debating this resolution. I agree with you that an aff about poverty rhetoric would be awesome next year. I usually prefer to be topical, but it's really whatever works for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One word for this aff: Schopenhauer

 

I agree with you that the in-round discussion would be very in-depth if the other team was up to it. I think the fact that euthanasia is not specific to the class stuggle is a great argument, especially if the case has no speicific literature on the relationship between euthanasia and poverty (which it should to make this a good case). I think when legalization becomes a counterplan, I don't see how that counterplan has any net benefit. All you are doing is PICing out of a governemnt-mandated increase. Why should I care? I kritik all your disads anyway. All I would need is one piece of evidence on why an increase is good. But let's say the argument did come down to increase good versus increase bad. You could claim that simple legalization is not enough to overcome state control because the state is not fully surrendering its power to the people. This is because the state continues to see suicide as an inherent evil, even though people are allowed to establish euthania clinics. The bottom line is that when the state legalizes it but doesn't surrender its contruction of suicide discourse, then people are still traped because euthanasia is not socially accepted. I think an increase in euthanasia clinics is a concession by the state. It's saying that the state is doing what the people want it to do, what the acitivism is calling for. I still haven't been able to do much research on this, so maybe there isn't all that much out there specifically on an increase in euthanasia services.

 

I still don't know that answer to your question though. I think this aff easily links to arguments on governmentality and biopolitics. It's that idea of the illusion of choice. The government offers euthanasia in order to satisfy the activists, but the social services are only a part of its game to disguise its power over the population. I think that the aff would claim that the discourse around euthanasia is more of prerequisite to the plan. It would be sort of like a pre-plan case (or pre-fiat, if you believe in that). You could talk about how there have been attempts to legalize it (I know for a fact that a few different states have tried it) but there has been no success because of the state's mindset. Your activism in debate goes beyond the current situation in the governement to try to reshape the way people think about euthanasia. This means that the government can't set limitations or rules. I think this argument would make sense if you had the cards to back it up.

 

Sadly, since I'm a senior this year, I won't be debating this resolution. I agree with you that an aff about poverty rhetoric would be awesome next year. I usually prefer to be topical, but it's really whatever works for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One word for this aff: Schopenhauer

 

Could you elaborate on this? I haven't read any Schopenhauer, but, from what I know, it seems that he advocates life. Schopenhauer's system of ethics was against egoism. In his analysis of the "will", he said that desires are the driving force of soceity, but that those desires can never truly be fulfilled. From what I understand, the basic argument he makes is that life should be held as the highest value for all human beings. I think this could be a possible negative argument against euthanasia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not provide free hospice care???

 

That could be an alternative solvency mechanism for some of the advantage (death with dignity) while avoiding some of the legal issues. Although it may not be as critical. (ie you are putting someone in a hospital institution).

 

Alternatively, you could simulanteously critique the hospital institution with a critical version of the hospice care aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desirability is usually considered a stock issue. How do you prove that suicide is desirable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desirability is usually considered a stock issue. How do you prove that suicide is desirable?

Death > life

Death > poverty

Freedom to die > less freedom

Death > living in pain when medicine can't help you or you can't afford the medicine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if legalizing it was a problem, what's the inherency?

"Currently no U.S. funding for the use of assisted suicides"?

If you send me the inherency I can write you a plan text, but I don't see how inherent this actually is.

Other than that, I like the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death > life

Death > poverty

Freedom to die > less freedom

Death > living in pain when medicine can't help you or you can't afford the medicine

 

This is also exactly what Schopenhauer says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism K is so true. Hospitals will influence patients to opt for death--especially since they bear the burden of h/c costs.

 

Would be a tasty irony aff. You wouldn't have to research...just switch words in Johnathon Swifts story. And throw in some a) performance B) irony (or something similar) good judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...