You are on page 1of 3

Motion

1. 1st (+) THBT Patients have the right to refuse live-saving treatment
on the basis of religious belief (example: jehovahs witnesses and blood
transfusions)

Ladies and Gentlement

Background

As we know that religion is the basic principle of life of people, in


democratic nation everyone have right to execise their faith or exercise
their religion as they want as long as not harm others people right. For
example moeslem, catholic curch, cristian, hinduism, konghucu or even
jehovahs witnesses. We think that every religion have their own value
that we cant intervere and we need to respect them all. For example
the jehovahs witnesses that respectfull on the blood and should keep
the blood as well. So in status quo today there was a several issue that
patient which is jehovahs witnesses they are try to refuse live-saving
treatment when there is concept of blood tranfusions, because by having
blood tranfussions it realy backlash with their religious belief. So thats why we
as the posotive team absolutely believe that Patients have the right to
refuse live-saving treatment on the basis of religious belief (example:
jehovahs witnesses and blood transfusions) . Because it will bring more

good than harm. (TL)

Ladies and Gentlement,


To make this debate clear, we would like to define this motion.
What we mean about giving right to patient to refuse live-saving
Definition

treatment on the basis of religious belief (example: jehovahs witnesses and


blood transfusions) is actually by grant full right for them upon the medical
treatment like what patient want. So full othority on taking the medication
need permition from the patient first, if the patient ok so the doctor will take
any action, but if the patient dont want to be treat by doctor so the doctor
have no right to do further treatment to the patient.

As the first speaker of positeve team I have 2 major point of Argument


1st Im going to talk on how patient have full right to refuse live-saving
Team Split

treatment on the basis of religious belief because religion is the private speers
that can not be compromized

2nd Im going to talk on how status quo mecanism on medical treatment


is enough without taking blood tranfusion to give traetment to the
patient.
Argument
Now moving on my 1st Argument on how how patient have full right
to refuse live-saving treatment on the basis of religious belief because
religion is the private speers that can not be compromized .
Ladies and gentlement, As we know that religion is something

absolute that cant be intervere by any party. As the social being we


need to respect other peoples belief. Because its the individual choice
that can not be trespassed. For example jehovahs witnesses that really
respect toward blood. Because they believe that blood is something
holy. On their holybook has stated clearly that god commands us not to
use a blod (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, Deutromomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29).
Also, for Allah blood symbolized life (Leviticus 17:14) Thus, Jehovah,s
witnesses avoid blood not only in obedience to good but also their respect to
him as the giver of live. So we think that its very fundamental value of
jehovah witnesses to avoid blood transfusions. So we have no right to force
them to take any blood transfusion. Even doctor also have no right to
intervere this private speers. For example in moeslem value we are not allow
to eat pork. Or hinduism are not allow their follower to eat cow becoause cows
is something holy. So can not force them to eat something that haram for
them.
So thats why religion is the private speers that can not be compromized .
Ladies and gentlement, moreover we all know that by giving full right to
patient to refuse live-saving treatment on the basis of religious belief is inline
with concept of doctor eticode. We believe that there is concept of doctor
eticode which is every single treatment to the patient need agreement or
concent first to the patient. For example when the patient need big operation
or surgery, the doctor need to ask agreement first before take the surgery or
operation. Even should there is sign contract as part of prove that patient
willing to be cured by the doctor. But if the patient do not want to take
operation or surgery, so the doctor can not do anything and force the patient
to follow the doctor. So every kind of treatment shloud depend on the patient.
So that why the moment when patient do not give permition to the patient to
take blood transfusion, but the doctor force them so it is break the eticode of
doctor.
Ladies and gentlement, the reason why patient have full right to refuse
live-saving treatment on the basis of religious belief, because we do believe
that patient have body otonomy right rather than the doctor. Because its
related to the life of patient. We think that patient know more the condition of
thier body. This is same with the case of smoking. Everyone know that
smoking is bad. But if people want to smoke, we say that its an indivudual
right how people try to valuing their body and we have no right to forbid
them. Because they have body otonomy right. And we can not intervere this

Now moving on my 2nd Argument on how status quo mecanism on


medical treatment is enough without taking blood tranfusion to give
traetment to the patient.
Ladies and gentlement we all know that in this globalisation era the
technology is getting sophisticated and better. Even in the medical
treatment there is significant improvement. For example in many case
that surgery or big operation no need any kind of blood transfusions. In
surgery control of bleeding is achieved with the use of laser or sonic scapels,
minimally invasive surgical techniques, electrosurgery and electrocautery, low
control venous pressure anesthesia or suture ligation of vessels. Other metods
include the Use of blood subtituteswich do carry oxygen, such as polyheme

and hemepure. So we believe that current status quo is enough to give better
treatment to the patient without blood transfusion.
Ladies and gentlement even if in worst scenario there is something wrong
on giving treatment without blood transfusions, we say its ok beacuse the
patient have take their own consideration or their rasional decicion so they
have to know the risk. But we believe that possibility of succes in surgery
without blood transfusion will happen because the technonlogy getting better
and sophisticated. Even profesional doctor or medical treatment allways ready
to prevent the harm. So thats why we do believe that status quo mecanism

on medical treatment is enough without taking blood tranfusion to give


traetment to the patient.

So, what i have proven to you before is that

1st patient have full right to refuse live-saving treatment on the basis of
religious belief because religion is the private speers that can not be
compromized.

Link Back

2nd status quo mecanism on medical treatment is enough without


taking blood tranfusion to give traetment to the patient.
So that why as goverment team, we absolutely believe that Patients
have the right to refuse live-saving treatment on the basis of religious belief
(example: jehovahs witnesses and blood transfusions) .

Thank you