Euthanasia Debate - TCD Historical Society

Both "The Hist" and "The Phil" (Historical Society and Philosophical Society, respectively) have weekly debates, usually on Wednesday and Thursday evenings around 7:30pm.  The Hist debates are sponsored by The Economist; the Phil debates are sponsored by AIB (Allied Irish Banks).  Debates feature student speakers and honored guest speakers, including politicians, judges, authors, religious clergy, corporate execs, professors and miscellaneous public figures.
The Phil's website describes the organisation, in part, as follows:  "Since its foundation in the 17th century, the Society, often referred to as 'The Phil', has concerned itself with the art of oratory, teaching young people the skills of public speaking and the value of free speech."

 

The Hist's website gives the following description, in part:  "The College Historical Society is the oldest student Society in the World. We were the first and original debating Society founded in College in 1770 with a heritage to 1747."  . . . "The members and their influence on Irish history have been incredible and the Hist has produced many of Ireland's greatest patriots, politicians, authors and orators."

Tonight, I attended my first Hist debate:  "That This House Would Legalise Euthanasia".  As it was my first debate, I didn't know exactly what to expect, other than (obviously) proponents and opponents speaking on the topic at hand. 

Here is The Hist's description of this week's topic:
"This week the Hist will be debating one of the most complex moral questions facing modern society. Does the 'right' to die give people more control over their life and well being? Or does it entrench the weakest in our society into a position of vulnerability in which they conceive their very existence as a burden?"

"Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her benefit. Does an individual who has no hope of recovery have the right to decide how and when to end their life? The main arguments for euthanasia are that it provides a way to relieve extreme pain; it provides a way of relief when a person's quality of life is low, it frees up medical funds to help other people and it is case of freedom of choice. Those against the legalisation of euthanasia argue that euthanasia devalues human life and also, that physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death. One of the main issues raised by both those for and against euthanasia is that of the dignity of the person. Does a person not have the right to die a dignified death? And does dependence need to mean indignity? Euthanasia is legal in some countries: Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland." 


Location:
The debates take place in the Debating Chamber of the GMB (Graduates Memorial Building), a beautiful neo-gothic Victorian building near Front Square, next to the Dining Hall and across from the Book of Kells building ("The Old Library").

GMB front door

The sesssion begins with what I presume was a general recap of the prior week's events and a reading of the minutes from a meeting.  I couldn't understand a word this guy said, mainly because he was talking so fast, but also because he had a thick accent and seemed to laugh at his own jokes every 10 words.  The rest of the room apparently understood this chap, as the room filled with laughter several times.  I was lost.

The Debating Chamber is a large, high-ceiling room just inside the front door to the 2nd left.  The room contains large paintings of various esteemed alumni and other Irish historical figures.  During debates, there is a large table and a podium in the center, with rows of chairs on each side facing the debating table.  The layout looks like this:

Next, the debate began.  Although I don't know the exact rules of the Phil or Hist debates, it seems that the debate starts with students who signed up and planned ahead for this debate, then they have guest "expert" speakers from various organizations present their views, then the floor opens to anyone in the audience who may want to do an impromptu debate.  I was impressed by some of the students, unimpressed by others.  In all fairness, I can't see myself getting up there in front of 100 students, so kudos to those who had the courage, but some students just didn't come across as either articulate or professional or both.  Some were able to back up their arguments rationally, some just ranted and raved at how ridiculous the opposing point of view was without objectively justifying their own position.

Debate Rules - ?
I don't know the exact rules, but in general there are rules regarding timing and questions posed from the audience.  The speaker has the first minute or so to speak uninterrupted, then a bell rings, signaling that the floor may pose a question.  If there are questions from the floor, one must stand up and extend a hand outward.  The speaker then chooses to take the question or says "No, thank you".  One can also apparently stand up and say "Point of Information" - to which I think the speaker can accept or decline to answer.  When the floor opens to unscheduled speakers at the end of the debate, there are apparently certain rules that apply to "newbie" speakers, but I'm not 100% clear on how they operate.  I think they can choose to waive the question interruptions or preserve their right to no interruptions.  Tonight the impromptu speakers (I don't know what to call them, I'm sure there is an official term) both chose to waive their rights, to which the audience clapped and cheered.

What I Gained From This:
Whatever our personal views are on euthanasia, I enjoyed this debate.  It really made me think and appreciate the slippery slope of this topic, no matter what side your beliefs fall on.  I learned a lot about other countries' laws on the topic as well.  In Ireland, it is a crime to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another.  Dutch law was cited frequently during this debate; euthanasia and assisted suicide are no longer a crime in the Netherlands when it is carried out by a physician and certain criteria of due care have been fulfilled, and this criteria even allows for ending the lives of children.  It's definitely a controversial topic, thus it made for a very interesting and thought-provoking debate.

I look forward to going to additional Hist debates and also checking out some of The Phil's debates.