Question: Should the Practice of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legalized?

Euthanasia

Hello, I'd like to start by saying that the claim that euthanasia is a cowardly act is utterly baseless, and it should indeed be legalized. How can one label it cowardly when terminally ill individuals, enduring relentless agony, choose to end their suffering? Terminating one's life is not a sign of cowardice but a demonstration of immense bravery. To make the decision to die for the sake of one's own well-being requires significant courage, fully aware of the impending end. Moreover, what about those who have no hope of survival and are merely awaiting their demise? Should they be forced to live with a countdown, enduring excruciating pain each day? People have the right to die with dignity and choose the manner of their passing. Permitting someone to suffer endlessly until death is cruel and inhumane. Furthermore, what is the value of suffering? Suffering is a curse upon humanity, bringing out the worst in people, and serves no apparent good. Any means to alleviate or eliminate suffering should be considered a positive. Therefore, individuals should have the option to seek relief from their suffering through euthanasia.

I see you're going on the offensive here, alright.And you haven't posted any arguments of yourself here, just pointing that out.#1You're taking an example that rarely occurs here. Of course there are exceptions, but 9 out of 10 people die in those cases. And we can't make judgements based on exceptions. You know there is no hope left when the patient shows no signs of recovery and is too severely wounded for him to possibly recover. Your source clearly states he was the ONLY person in britain who had survived that case.I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just stating a what if. And again you're taking an extreme example. Sure there is a time when there's a conspiracy between family members and doctors to make sure the patient dies to gain his fortune. But if we don't stop being scared of those extreme situations and look at the big picture (to help many suffering people), we will never achieve something.#2Using extreme examples again. What you say may be true, which is why the law in my country (Netherlands) says that euthanasia can only be performed on request of the patient. And that doctor was an *sshole, don't let those people cloud your judgement.#3God gave us free will so also the free choice of inventing abortion and euthanasia.

I understand what you are saying that we should not be allowed to take out own lives, but isn't that your choice to make? Why even live in this world if we can't make out own decisions. Yes there could be medicine but what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option? The process of euthanasia is a process with full consent from the patient, and the doctor can't even be in the room when they pass so it is completely the patients choice. We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do. Just think if you were in their shoes, how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that? It may be seem unconstitutional to most people but its not their decision to make, it's the patients decision and no one else should make it for then. If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period.

Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough? SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT FACILITATE THE RIGHT TO DIE?

I am currently on a phone, so I will wait to rebut my opponents case until next round. I. Will it be only for terminally I'll people? Generally speaking, sicknesses that cause long term problems lead to anguish, and people think unplugging them would "end suffering". The problem, however, is that terminal is ill defined. Many doctors claim it means death within 6 months. Others think its something that hurts you for more then a day. Though that's faulty as a flu can last longer then a day. You get the point. The definition had not been given. Though it's debated still in the length of time it takes for a patient to die. Meaning euthansia would mean you may live fine for months before you die. It's also impossible to guess. Euthansia.com notes, "Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and "meaningless life." [1. http://www.euthanasia.com...] Further, many claim it is a personal choice. Though many of these patients are not terminally ill. Many are depressed. They just want to die a legal way. This leads to my next point. ===Most patients wanting death are depressed=== Sorry if this sucks--Im on a phone so I will quote a lot--just a warning. The American Journal of Psychiatry notes, "The striking feature of [our] results is that all of the patients who had either desired premature death or contemplated suicide were judged to be suffering from clinical depressive illness; that is, none of those patients who did not have clinical depression had thoughts of suicide or wished that death would come early." [2. http://www.nrlc.org...] It has been shown these patients depression makes them irrational. Many of their sicknesses are treatable but the depression makes them irrational. Instead of living they choose death. Proper research and care heals these desires and is a better response to promoting suicide [2]. Depression thinks for you, makes you do irrational things. Curing the depression much of the time can reverse these thoughts. And, therefore, euthanasia is NOT the option they would want when not affected by a brain problem... Meaning its quasi involuntary. ===Research > Euthansia=== Again on a phone. Quoting is easier. Next round I will have better argunments. "One-half of the cancer drugs in the last three years have made it to the market within six months." [3. http://www.debate.org...] Imagine, someone does assisted suicide... Before their death deadline effective treatments come up. Conclusion: I have shown most patients would not choose death if treated properly, and the definition of terminal sets a large ethical problem to euthanasia. It is, therefore, not in their interests to die or true wants and, therefore, would be like suicide (or murder). Many people die if cancer each day. Patients in hospitals play a large role in research, and killing them puts research back a long way and, therefore, causes many others to die. This effectively negates the resolution.

You say Euthanasia is bad. It is not bad at all. It is putting a person out of their pain and misery. This should be done ONLY if the person consents to it. You can't go around killing people because YOU feel that they should be put down. That is how how it works. It should only be done by a doctor and only if their patient requests for it. Many people think that Euthanasia is a homicide, such as Lethal Injection. That kind of killing is considered to be legal. You talk about morals. Keep in mind that not everyone has the same moral status like you. Many people have different ways of thinking. What you and your religion believe is none of my business and you can feel however way you want to feel about this subject. How can you feel guilty if you are not the person that is taking the life? I would understand if you feel guilty if one of your family members had to go through this. Since we are on the subject of family, I have to ask you this. What if one of your family members is suffering from a lethal disease/virus that's eating him/her alive[such as Ebola which has no cure yet]? Do you have the stomach to visit them each day and watch them die a little everyday and knowing that you could have ended their suffering sooner[as they requested(just saying)]? That would make me feel guilty if I had to watch a family member die in front of me and I can do something about it. It doesn't have to be your family member. What if it was YOU?! Do you want to endure the pain everyday and end up dead anyways? Or would you just want to get it over fast. The death rate of the Ebola virus is 50-90%. Do you want to take a chance and hope that you won't die from it?

In the case you allow nurses or doctors to euthanize humans opens up a whole new door of liability. There have been more than a few medical malpractice suits over the years where a nurse or doctor gave the patient to many drugs so they would overdose. Why some patients may be happy with this seeing as they are ready to go, what about the ones who were wrongfully executed? Also, what about all the teenagers that are depressed or suicidal. While sometimes its just a phase that they will grow out of other times it is serious and require treatment. Should a 16 year old girl be able to walk into a hospital and sign away her life because she had a bad day at school?

You base your argument on an intrinsic worth of people. I disagree that there is an inherent dignity of the human person or a value to the world simply by a person being alive. People are valuable for their contributions at some point some people can no longer add to the joy of the world. A sick, dying, and suffering person may no longer get any value out of life anymore; they may feel like and be a burden to society and family. That person may want to end their suffering and not be seen in as they are dying an agonizing death, they might not want their family to remember them like that; it'd be preserving the dignity and maximizing that worth of that person to give them the kind of quick painless death that they desire. No one should ever make the decision for someone else, but if a person decides for themselves that euthanasia is the best choice no one should stop them; it's a matter of choice. You argue that deliberately killing an innocent person is morally wrong. I admit that it usually is, but there are some instances where it is not morally wrong. Whether it is wrong or not depends on consent; it is wrong to murder, but not always to kill. It is the violation of a victim's will to live that makes murder wrong, but if a person doesn't will to live then their life isn't being forcibly taken so it is not morally wrong. It is the act of violating a person that makes rape wrong, similarly it is the act of violation that makes murder wrong, but euthanasia is a death without violation. I agree that we shouldn't define a person by their illness or suffering and we shouldn't make a judgement about their worth. No one has a right to make a decision to euthanize another person, only informed and consensual euthanize ought to be permissible. The Dutch abuse that you mentioned is horrific and involuntary euthanasia should be persecuted. Everyone should learn from their example and safeguards should be developed to prevent it from happening. Your statistics about suicide are not relevant. Although somewhat related it is still a distinctly different matter than euthanasia. Furthermore people seeking euthanasia would need a doctor's permission and that doctor could refer the patient to help if (s)he thought the patient could live a fulfilling rest of their life with treatment. You gave multiple historical examples of different societies fearing death. You claim this is an expression of people's innate understanding that life is good and death is bad. Euthanasia doesn't cause any extra deaths, so even if death is bad euthanasia wouldn't be creating any more badness. But I disagree that our fear of death is because of any innate understanding of morality, it is just a primal evolutionary trait; life has to value life or it wouldn't bother to keep living and protect itself and its species. I do appreciate the irony of using choice or autonomy to chose an action that prevents future choice. I argue that we shouldn't try to maximize the amounts or choices a person makes or the time they stay free, what we should be doing is preventing an outside force from taking away the choice, freedom, or autonomy of a person. It is ironic but not a contradiction.

That time frame would bring about other issues. When doctors give a diagnosis they do not give a set date they give a range and depending on the illness the range can be rather large. What happens if someone is told it could be 6 months or 6 years. Although this range is rather large for most illnesses it is very possible for rare illnesses that their just isn't the information to give a more direct time. Does that mean they would fit into the group of people allowed. I also think it is not okay for a parent to be able to choose to euthanize their child. Even if they have the right to refuse treatments it is completely different to say I want you to overdose them to end their missery. It is not their life and they should not be able to choose to do it. Plus, not to mention, have you been around 13 year old girls? Any person would opt to euthanize their preteen daughter if given the choice. As for if you are letting anyone who has the ability to make medical decisions make the decision there is no way to factor for those who have depression and suicidal ideation. The National Center for Biotechnology Information has a piece discussing euthanasia for terminal patients which states "They found that 59% of the patients who expressed a desire for hastened death had clinical depression, while only 8% of patients without a desire for hastened death were depressed" Their statistics show a large amount of people who would be interested in euthanasia are clinically depressed and that it does have a significant impact. Since suicide is an illegal act why would it suddenly be okay if one were sick. that makes is unfair to those who are depressed without terminal illness. How would one know that they were making the choice for the illness and not just because of the treatable depression. If cost is that big of an issue that is why hospice care is around. Hospice care is much cheaper, sometimes covered by insurance, and often has sliding scale care or "scholarships" to cover what is left of the costs.

First off, it was utterly painful to read my opponent's arguments... No periods or capitalization.. It was like reading a huge run-on sentence. ---Now to my case:"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause." (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) [1] Supreme Court rules that physician-assisted suicide is unconstitutional. "'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect" (Hippocratic Oath) [2] The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of the art and science of medicine, states that physician-assisted suicide should not be practiced. A five-year-old boy in Great Britain, after a long battle, survived deadly strain of E. coli, even though a doctor had said two years ago that he would have died over night. [3] Miracles (or, to the less religious, improbable phenomena) happen. It is not right to deny patients of a slim chance of recovery or a doctor's error. A misdiagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Also, a premature decision to commit suicide denies a patient of precious time to spend with family and friends. ---[1] http://law2.umkc.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Like anything else there would be some legal safeguards for both ends of the event. If you wanted to have the job done professionally in an assisted method there would be a legal contract. As for youths no contract can be legal until the participant is at least 18 yrs of age. As for having a bad day not many people seriously consider suicide due to a bad day,week or what ever. Most people who seriously consider suicide have suffered for an extended amount of time and have reached a point where they just don't want to suffer anymore or feel that there is no other answer. I think for healthy people there should be a psychological evaluation prior to the legal documentation to have your life ended in an assisted way. I know the suicide of healthy people is morally tough to accept, still is should be that person's right. Just before Christmas I lost a cousin to suicide she suffered from depression for many years. It saddens me that she felt the way she did but on the other hand she ended her suffering which plagued her for years. It's bitter sweet.


Question: Should the Practice of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legalized?

Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

You're misguided. People are human beings, and once we cease to exist, we won't exist anymore. Some people may choose to end their lives over a game or due to bullying. Do you enjoy being bullied for being overweight? I'll bully you right now. Let's go. Where? Come with me, you fool. Okay... I drag you to the locker room. Why? *gasp* This hurts...

On October 12, Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old woman diagnosed with inoperable terminal brain cancer, announced her plans to end her life voluntarily on November 1. Her diagnosis indicates that she will eventually lose all cognitive capabilities. Maynard declined aggressive chemotherapy treatment and opted to move to Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. Under Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, mentally competent terminally ill patients with less than six months to live can choose when to die by taking lethal doses of prescribed drugs. With only a month left to live, Maynard has transformed her impending death into a campaign for terminally ill patients' right to die with dignity. However, her decision has faced fierce opposition from disability rights advocates and religious conservatives.

The United States values and celebrates the freedom to live according to one's beliefs and choices. But terminally ill patients who wish to choose a peaceful death over a painful and prolonged end often encounter significant obstacles in obtaining life-ending drugs. Denying mentally capable individuals the right to end their lives in a peaceful manner is a denial of their individual rights to self-determination and freedom of choice. Oregon is one of only five U.S. states, including Vermont, Washington, Montana, and New Mexico, that permit medically assisted suicide. In the rest of the country, assisting someone with suicide, even if they are terminally ill, is a crime. Maynard's campaign highlights the intrusive and unfair nature of laws criminalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and their families.

For one, these patients must accept and live with their diagnosis. Second, asking a loved one to help end their suffering exposes them to the threat of prosecution and jail time. The fear of prosecution for family members who assist terminally ill patients is not just theoretical. Last year, Barbara Mancini, a 57-year-old nurse in Pennsylvania, was prosecuted for giving her father, John Yourshaw, a lethal dose of morphine. Yourshaw was a home hospice patient in declining health and had repeatedly expressed to his family his wish to

The poll that you have shared in your argument shows a great point. 82% of those people agreed with the fact that terminally ill people should have the right to assisted death. You said that a lot of people simply agree with what the majority think, however in the poll above, it does not state whether or not the people involved knew the other candidates choice or if it was a private vote. If it were a private vote, then your statement could be considered invalid for this particular argument. Yes, the majority of people ( I would hope everyone would agree with this) want rape to be illegal, and it is, as it should be. So is murder and robbery. However you can look at murder and assisted death as two different things. Yes, they both involve ending someone's life, but murder is done illegaly, violently, and without the consent of the person being murdered. Where in assisted death, it could be done legaly, non violent, and with the consent of the person who wants it done. There are terminally ill patients who don't wish to end their life even with all the pain and suffering they are going through. And that is perfectly fine. If assisted death is legalized, it wont be forced on the patient. It is only an option that is open to them. Yes , there are treatments for depression, which can occur in terminally, and non terminally ill patients. But we are talking about the physical pain caused by the illness, not the mental. Even though that is just as important. People who want to die are considered mentally unwell when there is no physical pain involved with that feeling. When you are talking about a terminal patient wanting to die, you see it more as they are in physical pain, and nothing can fix it. Terminally ill patients and physically healthy patients with a mental disorder who want to end their life are two different things. A mental disorder can be treated with medicine, and if the proper steps are taken to help this person such as therapy, are taken, they won"t die from it. They are not given an amount of time they have left to live because if correctly handled they could live for a long time and not die from the illness, but of old age. A terminal patient, however, can only be treated with so much medication, and they are given an amount of time they have left to live. They cannot stop death from coming. They cannot end the pain they will feel as the disease progresses. There is always a point to finding a cure. The people who are terminally ill now, might not have the time to see that cure. But as we continue to search for the cure, why should we let those who don't have the chance to see it, suffer? Cancer is an illness that has been around for ages. At one point it had no way of being treated, but now it does. Some cancers are still looking for a cure. Just because assisted death becomes an option, doesn't mean we stop looking for cures. It only means that until then, we don"t let the people with the disease suffer. We give them the option to stop it. Like I said in my last argument. It is only a guess at how much time the terminally ill patient has left. As for the video, if you actually sit down and listen to what is being said, you can see and hear how this illness effects not only the mom, but the family. Yes, the son said he doesn't want her to die, but who wants to see a loved one die? And as for the daughter, what she says is that she has been there through the whole illness, from the diagnoses to the time she is at now where she is bedridden and cannot do anything but talk. She says that before her mom's illness took over, they used to be able to go places, have plans, do things together that not only the daughter enjoyed, but the mom as well. And now because of the illness, the mom cannot do anything. What she was saying was not because she WANTS her mom to die, but because she doesn't want her to suffer any longer. I encourage everyone who is following this debate to watch the video. It is only 3 minutes long, but it is perfect for my part of the debate. You can understand all the emotions going through the patient and their family. She doesn't want to end her life for the solo reason being that it is an option, because if you listen to her speak, you will know that at this time, it is not an option. She is in pain. She doesn't want to live like this, she doesn't want to get to the point in her life where she is answering people with blink once for yes and twice for no. Terminally ill children have the right to make a decision about their health as well, even though a parent can override their choice. A child who is terminally tends to have a higher maturity level then a healthy child due to the circumstances. In the video I have linked below it shows a 5 year old girl who is terminally ill. Her parents gave her the decision to choose heaven or hospital for the next time she gets sick. https://youtu.be... Medicine trials are what i was referring to. When a medicine is released and in a trial period, it is only given to those who fit the criteria. Not every patient can get it. It takes time for the medicine to be processed and used in daily medicine. If the patient decides to end their life, and a cure is near to being found that can be used on that patient, they would be informed before they made the final decision to end their life. Sure the patient could have more time to spend with family if they decided not to choose assisted death, but if the patient chooses assisted death, they know when they will die, and they will know how much time they have left to spend with their family. In the link below is an article about a 29 year old woman who has brain cancer. In this article it tells you everything that I have been saying, or have tried to tell you. It is a great article with a lot of good points that I believe not only you should read, but everyone else as well. http://www.cnn.com... Mentally ill patients are not the only ones who cannot wait to die. If someone is terminally ill, they want to die because of the pain they are in, and because it is their choice to decide how they want their life to end. Sure not everyone knows when and how they will die, but in the cases of those who do now, and they now they are dying because of an incurable illness, why not give them the option to end the pain and give them the choice of when to end it? As for taking a terminally ill patient on a road trip, that is not a good idea. If they are at the end stages of life, then their immune system will have trouble fighting off viruses. At that point, something as simple as a cold, could kill them. It is also may be physically impossible to take a terminally ill patient on a road trip. If they are in a lot of pain, they could also have a hard time enjoying the things around them.

Personally, I am Pro- Euthananasia. If in the modern, well developed society we live in, we have the right to live, shouldn't we also get the right to die? Pain is a sad fact of life, it's inevitable. Most of us can get through a tought time, to the other side of the mountain. So, what if that mountain is just a uphill battle full of pain and misery that leads nowhere?

In conclusion, because everyone has a right to their own body, everyone has the right to suicide, regardless of the approval of anyone else. It shouldn't be contingent upon illness, for doctors do not have the authority to decide whether someone should live his life.

I want you to look up who Tony Nicklinson is and tell me why euthanasia was not a legal option for him? It was clearly his choice, and other people(judges and attorneys in the court system) made him live in lockout syndrome even longer. He ended up refusing food and starving himself to death. Your statements saying we need to find better medical research obviously doesnt apply to cases like such, and most patients who want Euthanasia have similar cases. Going back to what you said, your saying we should make people like Tony Nicklinson live if he doesnt want to anymore? (look him up for a better understanding of his story)

I am suggesting that there are some people in America that should have the right to choose euthanasia if they have conditions that are considered terminal.

I would like to start by stating that I wasn't ignoring my opponents points in the second round, but simply following my precedent of debate procedure; that is, to post my initial argument in the second round and then move on to refutations and elaborations in the third round. Let the reader know that I am not skipping over my opponents point, and will address it further on in this round. Speaking of my opponent's points, I would also like to point out that he is only using really one contention, the other being a different way to say the same thing. I.E. personal autonomy should be maintained by the individual and the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer. These are one in the same, and should only be counted as one point. Also, my opponent doesn't even strengthen his "second" point, being that "the user of ones body has more of a right to control it than a casual observer", but simply states his opinions. Let all opinions I point out of my opponents from this point on be discarded, for they are irrelevant. 1. Patients requesting Euthanasia are depressed. My opponent tries to negate my contention by, again, bringing up his point that self ownership is inalienable. Furthermore, he tries making my facts irrelevant by saying that my source was not a medical journal, website, or other medically associated source. I will show how both of these attacks fall, and why this point stands. A. Self-Ownership is inalienable- Pro tries to state that since every person has the right to their own body, it doesn't matter that they are depressed, but since they want to be Euthanized, they should. My opponent, however, seriously misjudges my actually point I am trying to make to the reader. This depression that is found in patients can be compared to a dark cloud over their minds; their judgement of what THEY as a PERSON actually want is completely fogged and they have no real motive for wanting to be Euthanized. I'm not saying that I, as a casual observer, think they wouldn't have a reason. More so I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue with being Euthanized after they were cured of this depression. But, unlike my opponent, I wont just state my opinion, but use fact to show why this is correct. "Advocates of physician-assisted suicide try to convey the impression that in terminally ill patients the wish to die is totally different from suicidal intent in those without terminal illness. However, like other suicidal individuals, patients who desire an early death during a terminal illness are usually suffering from a treatable mental illness, most commonly a depressive condition. Strikingly, the overwhelming majority of the terminally ill fight for life to the end. Some may voice suicidal thoughts in response to transient depression or severe pain, but these patients usually respond well to treatment for depressive illness and pain medication and are grateful to be alive." ( H. Hendin and G. Klerman, "Physician-assisted Suicide: The Dangers of Legalization", American Journal of Psychiatry). On top of these facts, and a completely medical source..."A study of hospice patients who were terminally ill 'found that the majority of terminally ill patients did not want to die; and all who desired death were suffering from major depression. Many other studies have reached the same conclusion: terminally ill individuals who choose to have their lives ended make the choice because they are suffering from depression, not because they are suffering from a particular terminal illness.'" Affidavit of Nancy J. Osgood, Ph.D., Medical College of Virginia. Patients respond WELL to being treated, and will, as stated above, cease desires for euthanasia after they are cured. However, it's not easy to spot depression early on in patients, leading to all these patients wanting to be euthanized, and if the depression builds, it could become too late. Therefore, I advocate that instead of legalizing euthanasia, we train doctors and psychiatrists more in the ways of finding depression in those who are terminally ill and actually test these patients more often for such mind-clouding conditions."The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association agree 'most physicians fail to recognize depression, thereby precluding the opportunity for effective treatment."' (http://www.nightingalealliance.org...) My opponent states that places where Euthanasia are legalized are prime hunting ground for statistics. Well, let's take a look at Oregon real quick, one of the places my opponent mentioned. In accordance to the American Journal of Psychiatry..."In a survey of Oregon psychiatrists, only 6% felt very confident that, absent a long-term relationship with a patient, that they could satisfactorily determine in a single visit if a patient was competent to commit suicide." On top of this, "In Oregon's first three years of legalized assisted suicide, only 29% of patients received any psychiatric examination before being given a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs." Doctor's aren't even testing all the patients for depression, basically handing out the death drugs like candy. Are they doing their job correctly, upholding the doctor's oath, if they aren't even checking all possible alternatives that a patient would be requesting euthanasia for? This is a problem, and will only spread to all the other states and families of loved ones if euthanasia is legalized. Finally, we can take a look at the study my opponent cited by the Oxford Journal of Medicine. Upon taking a closer look, we can see that the study consisted of only 76 patients. Of those, only 17 requested Euthanasia. Upon even CLOSER looks, we see that of these 17, 47%(8) were depressed. Are these the kind of numbers we want to legalize something off of? 8 patients?? The study he cited said ITSELF "Further depressed mood was not associated with explicitly requesting euthanasia in this patient group, ALTHOUGH STATISTICALLY UNDER POWER CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN THIS SMALL SAMPLE." I apologize for the emphasis with the use of capital letters, but I don't know how to bold the letters, which would have been preferred. Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent states that the right to self ownership is inalienable. Why then does every male in the United States at the age of 18 have to sing up for "selective service", where he signs over his body to the U.S. government in the time of war. After that, your body isn't your own, for you cannot end your life (which isn't allowed anyway) or decide not to fight, for you will be persecuted and arrested. This, on top of everything else stated, invalidates my opponents refutation and leaves my point standing. 2. Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched Pro gives NO sources or facts to back up his statements that these drugs won't develop for decades to come, while I have given fact stating that these drugs are in development, and I will reiterate that fact. "One-half of the cancer drugs in the last three years have made it to the market within six months." This is progress, which my opponent blatantly ignores. "Clinical trials involving patients with cancer are "the requisite path for our advances" in cancer research" (http://leda.law.harvard.edu...) |Conclusion| Now, I have two standing points, while my opponent has none, for he has given no reason/fact/source that strengthens his point, and has actually only really stated a couple sentence in regard to it, while he decides to focus on attacking my points. Within my refutations, I have actually countered my opponents personal autonomy argument, stating that after proper methods are implemented, patients won't want Euthanasia. Why would we legalize something that would hinder medical research and end human life? It would be all too easy for doctors, like in Oregon, to just hand out the pil

If euthanasia is legalized the decition of doing it will be of the ill person, doctors wont decide, so they would still need to work as hard to find a cure. Do you think is fair that someone suffers and that they cant stop it?

ok and thank you for taking me on ok while most people view euthanasia as suicide I find it to simply to be an escape from pain if you survive a crash and the doctors think they cant help or that they can but you will undergo more pain be more disfigured and there is only a slight percent chance of survival then I ask you what is the point of having you loved ones know the pain you r going through get there hopes up and then if you don't its just that much more they r hurt now the supreme court has already ruled that the right to life also means the right to death so in any state the person has the right to say they do not wish to carry on and to stop all medical treatment but this can be slow and painful as you have to wait to die even if you r survivng because of something that hurts you is incurable but takes weeks or years to kill you the person has the right to ask not to be cared for in which case they do not get food or water and have to die by that method which is also painful however in Oregon they have a law allowing for euthanasia in which case upon the patients request the doctor takes has to evaluate they r mentally sound and r not being forced by outside pressure two doctors must then talk and make sure survival is impossible or very low if both agree the patient is given one final chance to resend the wish for death if it is not then the doctor fills out a report and inject the patient with a toxin to kill them with out pain

#1Since I'm not a buddhist I don't think "life is suffering". I'm also not judging whether someone should die or not. I'm just saying that if people CHOOSE to commit suicide, it is their choice and you shouldn't interfere with that. The same with euthanasia. #2You were partially right. The definition of murder is killing a person under conditions covered by the law. That means euthanasia is murder in America, but not in Europe. This makes it debatable whether it is really murder. Some think so, some don't. I don't since the person agreed to putting him to sleep. Also Kevorkian carefully picked his patients and judged whether he would commit euthanasia on them, he didn't want anyone to die if he thought wasn't necessary. So I wouldn't call him a criminal, but rather some kind of savior. [1]#3God's commandment says "thou shall not MURDER". And I think we've just established it is questionable whether euthanasia is murder. Also the church has killed many people in the name of God, and that was okay with him. Then one ill person who sees no reasons to live should be fine too. Closing argumentMy opponent has heavily relied on exceptional examples which don't occur enough to make it a reason not to agree with euthanasia. I know this is a touchy subject so I'm asking the voters not to vote from your own opinion about euthanasia, but vote for the person with the best arguments.

Thanks for waiting :DDepression My opponent’s claim is they will take medicines then choose euthanasia. Though as stated virtually all euthanasia patients are depressed, and once they are healed they choose life. Meaning unless we mandate depression testing before they choose suicide, the problem would never be fixed as doctors rarely point out that they are depressed. And these mandates are contradictory to your arguments, as it would increase the amount of time doctors are with the patients. And, much of the time, it would be a violation of rights to enter their realm. So, really, this solution won’t work. And, anyway, many of these medications are ineffective meaning we think they are rational when they still are not, making your solution more frivolous [1]. Lives My opponent has claimed that there is 100 million signed up to be a donor. However many of them don’t pass the necessary tests so the actual donor count, based on that source, is 14,000 [2]. And, anyway, I have already showed these donors would eventually die so there would still be a continual chain of donors, and, therefore, having no effect on the amount of donors. Furthermore, I showed even if you agree with my opponents (they die faster meaning more donors) you would only add 80 to the stockpile. And many of them would not pass the tests. In reality, euthanasia would save no lives and have a net negative. And my opponent in his 100 million statistics also misses the point. Many of them choose later not to be a donor, and using living and dead so we get the 14,000 number. SO basically the 6,000 numbers is a better estimate. And that 100,000,000 counts people since the technology existed. Cost His argument is a play on emotions. A fallacy. I showed 300 people would have no overall effect, and this is a fact, and my opponent never refuted it. He merely states we are in bad economic times. Though this does not refute anything. It merely concedes no effect, meaning there is no cost benefit demonstrated by my opponent. Merely play on emotions. PainAgain, this point is weak as all diseases can be treated leaving minimal or non-existent pain. As the NRLC notes, “Proponents of euthanasia argue that "mercy-killing" is necessary because patients, particularly those with terminal illness, experience uncontrollable pain. They argue that the only way to alleviate the pain is to eliminate the patient. But is there a better way? … The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, "adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients."[3]Meaning his point on pain is, again, a play on emotions. There is no such thing as “mercy” killing, and this point is a moot. The quote above was previously given, I think, and I did indeed show there is no pain to control and, therefore, the point does not work in my opponents favor. And yes, many Americans get cancer. The point? See the quote above. This doesn’t work in your favor. A “right”My opponent in summary only says this: it’s a personal choice. This is not enough to prove it is a right as I have shown a right to life exists. Basically its like this:1. A right to life exists (my opponent agrees)2. No legal document shows a right to death exists (my opponent dropped this)3. Euthanasia does not fulfill any right to life and violates the right to life The second part of my argument is:1. Most people on euthanasia are depressed (agreed upon)2. If you are depressed, legally, you cannot be given anything except depression treatment “Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone [if they where depressed]”[4] 3. There is no right to euthanasia, they should be left alone This mean arguing it’s a choice is irrelevant unless he shows this choice is a right, not a mere privilege or choice. My opponent then talks about religions, though this has nothing to do with rights. Many religions support murder, though murder isn’t a right. This argument is irrelevant. Conclusions Basically we get PROs appeal to emotions, and misrepresenting his own evidence [2]. And many mere assertions that do nothing to prove or disprove anything in the debate. When you get right down to it, PRO has failed to refute any of my arguments or prove his one point (rights). A CON vote would be logical. [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com... [2] http://www.organdonor.gov... [3] http://www.nrlc.org... [4] http://www.nrlc.org...