University Debate: ICU Access for Drug and Alcohol Patients - Analysis

This document is a debate speech arguing against denying drug and alcohol abusers access to intensive care units (ICUs). The speaker refutes the proposition by addressing ethical, moral, and practical considerations. The argument highlights the importance of patient rights, the sanctity of life, and the ethical obligations of healthcare professionals to save lives, irrespective of a patient's lifestyle. The speaker uses deontology, non-maleficence, and the ethics of 'sanctity of life' and 'human dignity' to support the argument. The speaker emphasizes that all patients deserve medical attention and that denying access to the ICU is against medical ethics and the oath taken by medical professionals. The speaker concludes by urging the audience to consider the patient's life as valuable and worthy of saving.

Running head: DEBATE ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL PATIENTS 1
Debate on Drug and Alcohol Patients
Name
Institution Affiliation

DEBATE ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL PATIENTS 2
Debate on Drug and Alcohol Patients
Good afternoon Madam Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen.
The topic of our debate is "that Drug and Alcohol abusers should be denied access to intensive
care unit."
The topic implies that wen in critical condition drug abusers and alcoholics do not deserve a
place in the ICU. Drugs and alcohol abusers are individuals who use psychoactive substance, not
for medicinal purpose and alcohol which impairs their well-being physically, mentally,
emotionally or socially. The ICU is a section in a hospital set for patients with severe and life-
threatening illnesses and injuries that require close monitoring.
We the opposition team consider this statement null.
The second affirmative speaker talks of lack of justice in health and cost allocation. This is not
valid as he gives data on drug and alcohol abuse, failing to compare it with other data. The cost
is equally high, and even a child is part of the funds allocated. Trying to break further down
funds allocated for patients depending on the disease or age will be raising eyebrows because the
funds are simply for the sick.
He also says that the patient's rights of a drug or alcohol abuser should be overridden by that of a
child. This is wrong and goes against the patient's right, why sideline one yet both can be
treated? Both are patients and diseases do not choose, none is better than the other since all have
families.
He also talks of Patient autonomy and clearly gives a valid definition. However, I disagree with
the exemplary idea given; he talks of two patients presented to the ICU, a child, and a drug abuse

DEBATE ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL PATIENTS 3
hence the need to choose the child over the drug abuser. This should not be so since it is an
assumption or rather thought that may rarely happen but what if the drug abuser in question was
also a child? It is evident that the most vulnerable group in drug abuse today are children below
the age of 18, how then does one go about this. All patients are entitled to be attended to, hence,
there will be need to see to it that both receive the required medical attention.
Today as the third speaker, I am going to talk about deontology. According to Stuart, actions are
fully dependent on an individual's morality, what he considers right and wrong. He says that an
action and the consequence are independent (Stuart, 1863). Substance abusers are provoked by
underlying circumstances such as mental health conditions which make them as lack ability to
form moral choices and actions hence should not be denied treatment.
Secondly, I will speak of non-maleficence which states that we should not act in ways that inflict
evil or cause harm to others intentionally. It simply means "do no harm." Following this, denying
a substance abuser in a critical condition access to the ICU is intentionally risking his or her life
which is contrary to the ethics of non-maleficence.
Medical ethics is my third argument. The doctors and any other medical specialists take an oath
to save human life; this means that irrespective of the lifestyle of a given patient the key thing is
to save a life. Denying drug and alcohol abusers access to the ICT is asking these professionals
to break their oath. If they are in a position to save a life they should be allowed to.
My last concern is about the ethics of 'sanctity of life' and `human dignity,' it calls for saving life
as well as looking at what should be done first and what latter. There may be two patients in a
critical condition, but then the drug abuser is in a much worse state *Stuart, 1863).
Professionally, the doctors are expected to admit both but first attend to the one in a worse

DEBATE ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL PATIENTS 4
condition to avoid loss of life then later attend to the next, denying drug and alcohol abusers
access to the ICU means though shall die irrespective of having gone to a hospital.
So Madam Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, it is not right to deny drug and alcohol abusers
access to the ICT. If you think of it, why kill yet call ourselves human? Think of the patient as
your own, is their life unworthy? Is their death that is less painful, I believe we have lost loved
ones, and whether their lifestyles of personalities were good or not, we felt the pinch. Why then
should we endanger the life of another if we all know how important one is to others.
Thank you.

DEBATE ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL PATIENTS 5
References
John Stuart (1863) Utilitarianism London: Parker, Son & Bourn, West Strand.