Working Title: Understanding the Relationship Between Party Affiliation and Approaches to Medical Aid in Dying (MAD)
Medical aid in dying (MAD) has been a topic of debate for many years. The United States is politically divided into two major political parties, Democratic and Republican. Both parties have opposite views on MAD that affects terminally ill people. Since Congress has left the decision to states, it is important to express why MAD is important and why the Democratic party protects the right to die, while the Republican party opposes it. To illustrate the debates, the research presented will come from Oregon, a state that protects the right to die, and Texas, a republican state that is against the right to die.
2. Body Section 1 – Informative Overview of Topic
Paragraph 1 — Topic background and history — There is a long history of party affiliation associated with notions of assisted suicide in the United States.
Paragraph 2 — Introduce the politicization and partisanship of MAD — While Republicans generally tend to vote against the notion of assisted suicide, Democrats usually have more progressive ideas about it.
Paragraph 3 — Controversy of Assisted Suicide — Assisted suicide is controversial for the same reasons that abortion is, and as a result, the same party views affect it in the same way that they affect abortion.
2. Body Section 2 – Understanding the Partisanship Influencing MAD
A. Paragraph 1 — Identifying political views in both Democratic and Republican States — Although some progressive states have attempted to experiment with MAD, there is still a large amount of pushback from more conservative political circles.
B. Paragraph 2 — Examining data from Texas and Oregon on MAD — While Texas is a more conservative state that is opposed to the notion of MAD, Oregon is a more democratic state that has experimented with the idea more liberally. Data shows that Oregon’s experimentation with MAD has been largely successful and positive.
C. Paragraph 3 — How can partisanship be reconciled — MAD has received mixed responses depending on the notion of partisanship. It is argued that, in the future, partisanship can be negotiated through inter-party discussions and an emphasis on the need for specificity when interacting with things like MAD.
3. Body Section 3 — Critique of existing opposing views
A. Paragraph 1 — There are several opposing views which argue that Oregon’s experimentation with MAD has been unsuccessful, and these are generally motivated by party-affiliation rhetoric which this paragraph will aim to discuss.
B. Paragraph 2 — Examining the international successes of assisted suicide — Different countries outside of the United States often approach notions such as MAD. Although evidence shows that in these countries there is an amount of debate and controversy, it is no way similar to the partisan forms of controversy prevalent in the United States.
C. Paragraph 3 — The future of MAD in Oregon — Future experimentations with MAD in Oregon may continue to shed light on the falsehood of existing criticisms. This does not mean that there is an undeniable need for development and growth within this area, and especially concerning the legal elements.
4. Body Section 4 — Assessment of the relationship between controversial topics and partisanship
A. Paragraph 1 – Why do topics become highly controversialized in the United States depending on party affiliation — It is argued that the United States’ high levels of partisanship stem from its two-party political system, as well as several other reasons.
Controversialized topics in medicine prevent scientific development in the United States, due to intense forms of politicization and partisanship. The legal and sociopolitical development of scientific discovery often lags behind many other developed nations because of this controversy. Nevertheless, MAD shows positive results, albeit greatly affected by party affiliation.