Negative Case: September/October 1998

A young woman is in a serious car accident. The wreck has left her completely paralyzed and has done other damage as well. She cannot move, talk, or even breathe without the help of machines. She is almost always in pain and when she is not the fear of it returning leaves her terrified. She herself has heard the doctor say she will never get any better. She can't even tell her family to shut off the machines to end her suffering. It is incidents such as this that lead me to negate today's resolution which states Resolved: That the individual ought to value the sanctity of life above the quality of life.

[I would like to challenge the affirmative on the following definitions taken from Webster's Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary:
*Individual- peculiar to a single person or thing.
*Value- the utility of an object in satisfying the needs of human beings.
*Sanctity- quality of being sacred.
*Life- life protected by the federal constitution includes all personal rights and their enjoyment.
*Quality- an essential attribute or characteristic, degree of excellence.]

Today I will support the value of the quality of life. The quality of life is basically how good or bad life is. This should be the most important value in today's debate because life is only as good as it's quality and individuals cannot appreciate just existence.

The most appropriate criteria to use for analyzing the values in this resolution is that of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number of individuals. A good quality of life is the greatest good for the most number of individuals.

I will oppose today's resolution which two contentions: First, that life is only as good as it's quality of life and Second, individuals cannot appreciate just existence.

Let's first direct our attention to Contention One: Life is only as good as it's quality.
John Sibree, author of Philosophy of History, wrote, "Life has a value only when it has something valuable as it's object." This is true because a poor quality of life is not going to be appreciated by an individual. If they are not getting their basic needs met and suffering they are not going to value their lives. James Aylword, a professor of Religion at John Carrol University and author of The Sacrament of Suffering, once said, "The avoidance of suffering is man's greatest concern." For example, a person who is in constant pain is not going to value their life because they are not happy. Only once you have a high enough quality of life can you appreciate life. Existence in itself is not enough to satisfy individuals, which leads me to

Contention Two: Individuals cannot appreciate existence alone.
Individuals cannot appreciate just existence and they show this in many cases. You have to be happy to appreciate your life. If you were kept in a dark place, unable to move or communicate, but kept alive you wouldn't appreciate just being alive. You would want to move, get out and enjoy yourself. Individuals show that they cannot appreciate existence alone. Many dying patients do not appreciate their lives. John F.X. Sheehan, chairman of the theology department at Marquette University, wrote, "Anyone who has worked with dying patients who are in great pain realize the incompatibility of any serious reflection on spiritual matters with the presence of excruciating pain. The patient who experiences such pain thinks about little else during such lucid moments he has. This sets in action a vicious cycle. In any moments that are free of pain that the patient is filled with such anxiety about the return of the pain that the anxiety itself may trigger the return." Individuals in this position often prove that they value quality of life first because they often hire people like Doctor Kvorkian or commit suicide. Many other people who feel that they have too low a quality of life also commit suicide. If they valued life first they wouldn't commit suicide proving that individuals value quality of life first.

[Refute opponents case]

In conclusion, I have given you two specific reasons for negating the resolution. They are that life is only as good as it's quality of life and individuals cannot appreciate just existence. I would like to leave you with one final thought; if we were in the same position as the woman I mentioned in my introduction, would we as individuals really consider that painful life worth living?