title: A template for non-religious-based discussions against euthanasia.
abstract: We submit this manuscript as part of the ongoing conversation in society at large about physician-assisted death (PAD) and euthanasia. This outlines an approach used by lay healthcare professionals in arguing against PAD/euthanasia during a 1-hour debate conducted on a secular medical school campus. We have included the elements chosen for the "con" side of the argument (i.e., against PAD) by the medical students and attending physician. The goal of this manuscript is to provide a focused and pithy template upon which to build an approach that honors the dignity of life in all circumstances. Lay summary: The discussion over physician assisted death and euthanasia remains ongoing in secular academic medical institutions across the United States and much of the western world. These debates have incentivized efforts to develop a framework for arguments against Euthanasia that will find traction in an environment generally hostile to religion and religious thought. In this essay, we present arguments given by the "con" side in a student-led debate over physician assisted death and euthanasia at Vanderbilt University with the hope that they will provide a foundation for future discussions promoting truth and life without alienating our secular colleagues.
authors.forename: Melissa
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bloodworth
authors.forename: Nathaniel
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Bloodworth
authors.forename: E Wesley
authors.initials: EW
authors.lastname: Ely
keywords: Apologetics; Debate; Euthanasia; Physician-assisted death; Physician-assisted suicide