Arguments: 1. This has the obvious impact of casting doubt on the scientific results of the trials : you can no longer be sure who has taken what , and what other conditions they may have .
2. People lied or bribed their way into clinical studies ; and shared drugs to dilute the risk of being on placebo .
3. This was best documented during the early stages of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s , where there was evidence of cheating during the trials .
4. The second consequence is a practical one : compliance with the trial is lessened at the point at which patients can take alternative measures to increase their chance of survival .
5. There are two consequences here : the first is that it is morally dubious to use the present patients as mere means to an end , rather than acting in their own best interests , especially where , if randomized to the placebo arm the outcome of death is a certainty .
6. Whilst this is probably in the best interest of future patients -LRB- a good clinical trial will determine the efficacy of the new treatment -RRB- , it rides roughshod over the rights of the current patients -LRB- not to be sacrificed for future generations -RRB- and the duty of physicians to act in the best interests of their present patients .
7. However , when they join a trial they face the possibility that they will be given a placebo , not the drug .
8. Under the status quo , someone with a terminal illness is offered two choices : death , or to join a trial -LRB- where such trials exist -RRB- .
9. 1 Schklenk , Udo , and Lowry , Christopher , Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents , surgeries and devices : reviewing the ethical arguments , , Vol .89 , 2009 , pp.7-22 ,

Debate: This House would grant those diagnosed with terminal illnesses the right to access treatments that have not completed clinical testing


Arguments: 1. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible .
2. At present in Britain , some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial , if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character , or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness .
3. However , different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways , which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed .

Debate: This House would disclose previous convictions in court


Arguments: 1. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it , just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused .
2. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination : that each individual has a right to form his/her government , and to vote out governments s/he does not like .
3. Democratic regimes are the best form of government , and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others .
4. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights .
5. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual .

Debate:
This House would impose democracy