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

Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized? Thank you for this discussion. My argument against my opponent is that it could potentially decrease our population and lead to increased depression among families. It's a complex issue that needs careful consideration.

As for choosing their own ends: What if a second after the "sleep" medicine or whatever is administered, the person suddenly changes their mind and wants to live? What if they're a child or they have some mental impairment and don't fully understand what they're agreeing to? As for choosing another's end: Is that really a choice we ought to make for other people? Assuming we're talking about people who awake and somewhat aware and not people in a comma or brain dead or anything like that, should we really be allowed to choose whether or not another person died or lives? This is not a simple matter of ending someone's suffering.

I understand where Con is ultimately coming from- He makes crucial points that do need to be considered when debating the legalization of such an impactful procedure, but there are holes within his argument that I believe need to be addressed. My first rebuttal is the simple fact that, although ending one"s life is an eternal consequence like my opponent stated, the fate of these patients will already result in the equivalent outcome. Terminal, in Merriam-Webster"s online dictionary, means "leading ultimately to death (1)." With terminally ill patients, the outlook in the final stages of their ailment is an inevitable death. When considering this, one could find the point that no matter what the patient does in their situation, death will be an inescapable and irreversible outcome. What are these so-called "consequences" to physician-assisted suicide when the patient is going to die no matter what? So, why shouldn't a patient be in control of the conditions under which it occurs? If the patient were given the choice to be in control of how they would end up inevitably passing, one could schedule a date, make sure family would be there (because terminally ill patients can pass away arbitrarily in a hospital during a time family is not present), and clear up any unfinished business to the best of their abilities. Giving people the freedom to choose if they are terminal will give them the sense of control over something that is ultimately taking everything away from them. In many ways, I would compare it to the idea of shaving one"s head at the beginning of chemotherapy treatment. This gives a cancer patient the feeling of control over something that will inevitably happen due to their treatment (and I am in no way saying that death is the same as shaving one"s head, just the concept behind each is similar). Now, this brings up the question of mental competency. While there are some patients that may have depression due to their illness, there are equally as many who are completely sensible in their decisions. Take the case of 29-year old Brittany Maynard who had a stage 4 Glioblastoma multiforme for an example. When being interviewed by People magazine, she stated: "There is not a cell in my body that is suicidal or that wants to die. I want to live. I wish there was a cure for my disease but there's not... My glioblastoma is going to kill me, and that's out of my control. I've discussed with many experts how I would die from it, and it's a terrible, terrible way to die. Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying" (2). Maynard talked it out with her family in a very logical manor and was able to come up with a choice while being clearly competent of her options, future outlook, and what the use of euthanasia would ultimately mean for her. If euthanasia were to be legalized, restrictions could be made to require that psychologists do a Competency Screening Test on all potential euthanasia patients. While these are options on ways to regulate the use of euthanasia, I strongly believe that even if a patient might be depressed about inevitably dying (and wanting to decide when they should peacefully die), they should not be deprived of their human rights to be able to decide when they have suffered enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My next argument is that the widespread use of euthanasia (which only has the potential to become popularly used) will not ultimately result in euthanasia becoming the "default" way to die. Like my opponent explained before me, I will explain this in a blunt process like the one in his argument: 1.Person X is diagnosed with terminal illness Y 2.Person X is educated by their doctor on the options that they have (such as euthanasia) available to terminal patients (like others suffering from Y) 3.Person X, due to extensive thought (keeping in mind their moral beliefs), will either request or decline euthanasia. 4.Person X dies (even if they declined euthanasia) Although euthanasia may become a more widely accepted option among patients in the future if it is legalized, many people will not stray from their beliefs/morals held on death and the topic (like whether physician-assisted suicide is morally right). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another argument that I will address is how euthanasia will affect the field of medical research. Since there is no information that can prove what would exactly happen if euthanasia was legalized in the future, the only evidence I can use is my honest opinionated outlook (like my opponent"s argument on this specific sub-topic). My opponent stated that the primary reason that medical research is conducted is to find cures for disease. I wholly agree with his statement, but I disagree with his notion that a popularity in euthanasia use would drain all motivation from scientists/physicians to continue this research. For you to better understand my argument I will ask this: Why are physicians/scientists looking for cures today (with euthanasia being illegal)? The answer: Scientists are looking for cures because many people fall ill to terminal diseases and inevitably die, and they want to help prevent the suffering and deaths of these people. Like my opponent said, I agree with his statement that the point of a cure is to prevent death. I do not, however, agree with his statement: "If people are asking for death when suffering from a particular disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without?" I disagree with this statement because, if a patient is terminally ill and will inevitably die with or without euthanasia, the death of all of these patients (whether they die naturally from the illness or from euthanasia) will still motivate scientists to find a cure and prevent these deaths from even being necessary. So, I will clearly conclude that it will not lead to the decline of motivation in the field of medical research. Also, in contrast to the final point that my opponent makes, the legalization of euthanasia will most certainly come with many restrictions and means of regulation. If it were to be legalized, the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people. So, to overall conclude my rebuttal, euthanasia should be legalized because it shouldn't lead to a decline in a search for cures, many people will be able to decide responsibly if given the option, and people should be given the right to die peacefully and in control (if they choose to) instead of inevitably dying a little later on painfully (and without knowing when it will all end). Back to you, Con :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "terminal." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; (2) "Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?" ProCon.org. ProCon, 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2015. <http://euthanasia.procon.org...; *note that I'm new to this website and I don't know how to italicize on here so sorry for the slightly incorrect citations

why is euthanasia bad? Euthanasia is bad for many reasons. for my first argument I'm going to talk about 3 of my least convinces points, but hopefully they will still be able to convince people that euthanasia is wrong. First I want to talk about the argument of belief. Euthanasia teaches people to give up when times get tuff. If everyone thought with this point of view where would we all be in life? I believe tribulations make people stronger. I know in some cases the pain for some of these patients may hurt real bad, but it's not like there are no anesthetics to treat these people. What if scientist find a cure, but you just put your best friend to sleep because you are his doctor and he asked you to. How would you feel? If we give up on them, chances are they will give up on themselves. People with these astonishing diseases need words of encouragement. They don't need use to give up on them. Euthanasia morally wrong when. Religion plays a huge part of this, but I'm not to talk a lot about it because I know your atheist and it won't affect you in anyway. I know what is moral to me may not be a moral to another person, so I just want to talk about guilt. People feel guilty when they do something wrong (if they have a conscious). How do you think you would after letting a doctor kill someone you love, whether if it's based on your decision or theirs? I know I would feel guilty. If your answer is (yes i would feel guilty) does that not convince you that euthanasia is wrong right away? Last but not least, for this argument I want to show an example why decisions should not me made off of pain in the first place. When people are in pain they can say many things and not truly mean it. I know in the middle of a cross country race I'm thinking "somebody shoot me", but do I really want them to put a gun up to my head and shoot me? The answer is no. I still want to live, it's just my state makes me think otherwise. would you take someone out of their misery who is as indecisive as I am? I may think that but to tell you the truth I rather finish my run then give up. In a patients case he should continue fighting then give up. I just wanted to say I'm not suicidal if some of you are thinking that. I just wanted to use an example.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health is pretty irrelevant, since it involved a woman who was in a PSV (persistent vegetative state.) [1] "Euthanasia" is the practice of ending a life for his or her benefit (i.e., to relieve pain and suffering.) [2] She was in an unconscious state, so one really cannot determine if she was in pain or suffering. Hence, one cannot say that removing her from life support was an act of euthanasia. And, indeed, it is true that based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, people have the right to refuse medical care. This is not assisted suicide but rather an act of self-deprivation (which, we must also remember, does not necessarily guarantee death) [3]; hence, euthanasia is a completely different matter. Two physicians agreeing is not enough of a justification. Two physicians can look at the same flawed blood test and come up with the same conclusion... That doesn't mean that the conclusion becomes right. And let us remember the patient saying that he or she wants to die does not make the diagnosis any more true or the chances of recovery any fewer. The aforementioned five-year-old boy who contracted a deadly strain of E. coli survived. He suffered a lot, but he lived through it, despite the doubtful views of the doctors. Although they may have had mixed feelings before, the parents, if asked now, would most certainly not wish the boy was killed during his illness. Through the painful obstacles he endured, there was a small glimmer of hope. Ultimately, he received the gift of life. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.nrlc.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Suicide should not be legalised because it carries a long aftermath effects to the people left to deal with the trauma and to some financial cost.We have the state left to use the resources to try and determine the real cause if whether is authentic or a murder .There is no moral behind this motion so how will the law that protects the community that has made the right to life a fundamental right detor from its mandate.This diabolic act of taking one's life should not be legalised as it exposes the education system that has failed with the issue of building students to have a self esteem also the ability of making resolutions on solving issues.

California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states "This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life."This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.

The first thing I would like to do is give an example of this from personal experience before I build my case and establish my points. I have personal experience from this myself because of my grandmother. She is deathly ill at this point. She has lung cancer, fluid is constantly filling in her lungs, and she is at the point of getting Alzheimer's disease. As each day progresses they are constantly finding something new wrong with her. When we visit our family must sit there and listen to her screams of pain because of the illnesses that plague her. She is a Christian woman(not relevant to debate), and has told me time and time again that her wish is to die so that she can meet Jesus. She wishes to die and openly acknowledges this with full presence of mind, and she does this because she believes death a more viable choice than suffering. Where as I do not believe in Christianity, I do believe in the pain that she suffers. I also believe it should be her right to choose death. Main Points(1) This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering.(2) Suicide is already not illegal(3) This is an act of kindness or moral act(4) Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice(1)The first thing I would like to state is that this by no means will allow doctors or nurses the choice to end another persons life. This will be and shall be determined by the person(if they are in sound mind), or the family of the person. In a way this is already happening with families having the right to pull the plug on on someone. The only difference is they are not physically killing the person, they are passively allowing the person to die. Which is one in the same because they are doing so with the intent of killing the person. There will be regulation to this, and it will be tied in with power of attorney in case the person in question is not of sound mind. (2)Suicide is already not illegal. This speaks for itself. People may consider it immoral or cowardly but no where in the law does it state someone can not kill themselves. Historically this was the case, even up to the late 1980's. However in the early 1900's only two states listed suicide as a crime and since then has been removed. In fact Vermont has already legalized assisted suicide, and this should extend throughout the rest of the states. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://rt.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(3)We can safely say this is a moral act. As I have previously shown, anyone can commit suicide and it is not against any legal regulation. So if this is occurring commonly already, without any legal repercussion should a person who is an pain in suffering not have a say to end their own life. The most logical explanation is yes, and in fact it should be a right afforded to anyone who is suffering severe pain. (4) This will just build off of the previous points. We as a nation have been so advent on awarding people personal rights. We have did this with abortion as well. If a persons body is their on, and it already perfectly legal to do so(I do not even have to make a case for legality) to do so why then can they not choose death. In conclusionThis is a verily easy topic to support. We have already discussed how the right to chose death will be the persons choice alone, or in some cases the families if they are not in sound mind. I have also shown that it is perfectly legal, morally acceptable, and their right as a person to be able to choose death instead of suffering. The most logical and rational conclusion is to support this and help end needless suffering that is forced upon so many who do not wish it. I hand the floor back to my adversary.

Once again, allow me to express my gratitude to sherlockmethod for agreeing to debate with me. Let me begin this round by summarizing his arguments to the best of my ability. My opponent argues that, "Infanticide should not be legal because the changes it necessitates in the law would remove protections from a select group arbitrarily." Further on, he contends that a law regarding infanticide is unnecessary and that under our current legal framework it simply cannot survive a simple cost/benefit analysis. Moreover, Con goes on to argue that such a law would have terrible legal ramifications and it should, therefore, be rejected. While I do not find these arguments to be compelling (or even rational), they certainly have to be met with a serious response. In this context, I will argue that we can navigate through issues regarding infanticide without having to endorse absurd legal or moral positions. Moreover, the objections my antagonist raises simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. Despite Con's claims, my position can be coherently reconciled with valid moral and legal standards. ===================> Why Infanticide Should Be Legal In The United States <=================== C1: Infanticide is justified in the case of infants with severe medical problems that will end up killing them painfully. To put this entire issue into perspective, it is worth pointing out that some countries (e.g. The Netherlands and Holland) have legalized infanticide. In particular, the Dutch government has a policy on infanticide that is quite sensible. According to The Brussels Journal, "The guideline accepted by the hospital in Groningen last year states that euthanasia is allowed when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best." [1] For all practical purposes, this seems to be a very good model. Moreover, these societies have not faced any of the "massive legal ramifications" Con has tried to pass off as legitimate. Additionally, the fact of the matter is that anencephalic infants are not the entire story in this issue. According to medical professionals and those that deal with these issues, "[there are some] babies that are so ill that their suffering is unbearable and hopeless and that do not die of their own accord". [1] Clearly, some conditions are far worse than anencephaly. Some infants are in such a bad condition that even tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing. Therefore, Con's suggestion that nature and doctors can always ensure that infants have a painless death is palpably false. Ironically, my opponent doesn't seem to have a moral issue with infanticide in the case of infants with terrible medical conditions. Indeed, in his first round he goes so far as to say that, "Pro makes a solid case concerning infants with horrid birth defects." Where we seem to differ, however, is on the legal implications of my proposal. Simply put, my opponent argues that infanticide is a door better left shut in the case of terminally ill infants because of the negative legal ramifications infanticide may bring about. So, if I can successfully show that his concerns about legal ramifications are wholly unsubstantiated, then I will have won this argument, and thus the debate. Curiously, my opponent argues that unless we define infants as persons, then psychopaths will be able to torture and kill infants without the reproach of the law. To humor my opponent, I will grant him the proposition that all infants should be considered "persons" in the eyes of the law. Would such a concession be fatal to my position? Not at all – for it is clearly possible for someone to be a person and to not posses a serious right to life. Consider, for example, a situation in which someone charged at you with a machete in an attempt to kill you. In such a situation, it would clearly be legal (and morally justifiable) to kill the other person in self-defense, even though they are a person. So, at this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about ethics – a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate. And as I have demonstrated earlier, there are valid moral reasons to make a legal exception for some cases of infanticide, in much the same way there are valid moral reasons to create legal differences between murder and killing someone in self defense. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Despite what my opponent may believe, the U.S. Constitution need not be changed in order for my current legal suggestion to be implemented. As I pointed out earlier, at no point in the U.S. Constitution does it specify the qualities that make someone a person. Ergo, the definition of what constitutes a person must be created with the help of practical ethics and legal considerations. Later on, my opponent seems to suggest that the guidelines I have given for infanticide are "arbitrary". But honestly, I fail to see the strength of this unsupported claim. There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about the distinction between entities that are conscious and entities that are not conscious. The difference between a rock (an unconscious thing) and a person (a conscious agent) is tremendously consequential, and could hardly be called "arbitrary," in either ethical or legal matters. Furthermore, my opponent says that I haven't given a formal definition for a person. As a matter of fact, I have. I stated that a person is a "rational, autonomous or self-conscious agent". If you want a more formal definition, then I can give you one. In her book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren - an American writer and philosophy professor that taught at San Francisco State University - details five psychological criteria for personhood. According to Warren, these qualities include consciousness and in particular sentience; the capacity to reason; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate messages; and lastly, the presence of self-concepts. [2] As a result, an infant doesn't have a moral right to life in all circumstances since it doesn't have these five capacities. Thus, even if for legal considerations we called all infants persons, this ethical standard makes a strong case that legal exceptions should be made for infanticide, at least in the case of terminally ill infants. ::Conclusion:: The decision of whether or not to implement laws regarding infanticide need not be weighed down by scare tactics or specious reasoning. Con's not so subtle argument that allowing infanticide would lead to the legal torture, kidnapping and indiscriminate killing of infants is no more substantiated than the fatuous rumors that the United States' recent health care bill would have "death panels". [3] These sorts of arguments may convince people without the facts, but they shouldn't convince anyone that cares to look seriously at what I am proposing. Obviously, there is a proper legal and moral distinction between painlessly euthanizing a terminally ill infant in extreme pain and indiscriminately killing infants in a neonatal care unit. Our current legal and ethical framework already provides us with the tools to make these distinctions. Consequently, my opponent's main argument has crumbled and, therefore, I have managed to successfully demonstrate why infanticide should be legal in the United States. Sources: 1. http://www.brusselsjournal.com... 2. Warren, Mary Anne. The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. 1973. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Vol. 57. La Salle, Illinois: The Monist, 1973. (pp. 97-105) 3. http://www.nytimes.com...

1. People are going to die no matter what so why not let them try and get a long full life. How do we know when there is no hope left. there was a boy in great Britain and he had a deadly strain of e. coli and the doctors said he won't live. He was five. He lived despite "kidney and liver failure and (being) blind in both eyes" He also had numerous operations. Now he is a happy kid living a full life.[1] You claim that the patient has the choice to die then contradict yourself with the statement, "If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient" Well what if the person does not want to die, or the close people want the life insurance. Or the doctors want to save money on operating. We put a pet to sleep because they do not have the full mental capacity as humans do. 2. If we use euthanasia as a way to cut health care bills, we may go on the slippery slope and killing off whoever we please. There was a blue and baby deformed baby and the doctor decided to "let nature complete it's bungled job." The baby could have been saved but the doctor wanted to save money and time rather than a new life. 3. Lets keep god and religion out of this debate. However, God also allowed us to invent life support and other such life saving inventions so that we could help keep life alive. However voters, please ignore this colum unless my opponent wishes to be stubborn and not comply to my wishes. I suggest pro, that you do accept, seeing as this debate is highly religious. source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Euthanasia is a very intense topic, as one can imagine. Similar to abortion, questions of life and the worthiness of life exist, however, in this case, it is presumably voluntary (I will respond to this in a later round, as we see that in practice this is often not the case). The issue of euthanasia can be compared to the issue of racial equality when it comes to life. Pro-assisted suicide arguments generally rely upon the premise that some lives aren’t worth living. That if the pain is too severe, if the person feels worthless, or if the fix is too costly for a patient that death is a preferable option to life. In other words, certain lives aren't worth living. However, to argue that some lives are not worth living is in direct opposition to the laws which prohibit and struck down racial prejudice laws. The inviolability of human life is the principle which ‘equal and inalienable’ rights rests upon. It is the failure to understand the intrinsic value of life which leads to a person supporting pro-euthanasia arguments. To respond to this basic premise--of human life--proponents of assisted suicide often use the autonomy argument, but then comes the question: what should the physician do when the patient is incapable of making a decision. Generally, they say it is logical to defer the decision to family members and friends. But as we can see, this is in direct conflict with the autonomy principle which they base their original moral case upon. They are forced to contradict themselves! The simple fact is, if you support physician assisted suicide, you are forced to concede that lives have differing moral values, which is in direct opposition to the foundations of current legal institutions [1]. Doctors certainly agree with the position I am espousing. The Massachusetts Medical Society has voted to reaffirm its opposition to physician assisted suicide. Doctors argue that killing their patients is not their role as a healthcare provider. Deliberate destruction of human life is not acceptable according to their principles--and it should be for any decent human being. To clarify, I am not saying people for euthanasia are evil, I am saying that they need to reevaluate their position in order to support human dignity. Instead, the doctors assert that doctors’ goal should be to alleviate pain and instead make the final days much more pleasant rather than end the life altogether. Let me explain the position a bit more. A physician who helps a patient, even if it means speeding up the time before the patient dies, is not in a morally problematic situation. Death is a foreseeable likelihood but not intended. However if the purpose is to cause death, the doctor is in a precarious situation. The former doctor attempted to help the person--even if it accidentally led to a premature death (or, in many cases, a bearable life, or even recovery), however this doctor is one who chooses death over life. Adam Macleod, Associate Professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, argues “A person who purposely chooses to cause death, who makes death a reason for his actions, is not oriented toward the good. … By choosing life, one becomes a person oriented toward life. By choosing death, one becomes a person oriented toward death. ”[2] The World Medical Association also agrees with this testament, stating “The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions. ”[3] To conclude my basic point, the basic foundations of our society--the equality of human life--as well as principles which doctors abide by are in direct opposition to physician assisted suicide. To support assisted suicide is to favor death over life, and admit that under some conditions lives of people are worth less than others, which demonizes the weak patients who would ask for such a terrible thing. Euthanasia should remain prohibited and seen as a wrong in society. 1. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 2. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 3. . http://www.wma.net...


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

Euthanasia should be considered illegal and immoral, as it is essentially a legalized form of suicide. Let's explore five compelling reasons why euthanasia should be prohibited:

1. Euthanasia is tantamount to murder: The practice of euthanasia, derived from the Greek term "eu thanatos," which translates to a good or dignified death, involves intentionally ending a life by withholding necessary treatment or performing a procedure that directly causes death. Despite being viewed as beneficial by some, both active and passive euthanasia are deemed immoral and sinful, akin to abortion. The act of intentionally taking someone's life is considered murder. Opponents of euthanasia, particularly Catholics, argue that it is wrong because it violates the principle that only God has the authority to take life. The sixth commandment, "Thou shall not kill," reinforces the idea that all forms of killing, regardless of intent, are impermissible. Assisted suicide, often portrayed as a compassionate choice, is condemned by the Church.

2. Euthanasia grants excessive power to doctors: Euthanasia empowers doctors, potentially allowing them to play God. Given that many doctors today view their profession as a job rather than a vocation, this power can be misused. There have been instances where doctors have taken self-serving shortcuts, such as unnecessarily recommending caesarian sections for their convenience or pressuring patients into surgery to expedite their departure. With euthanasia, doctors might be tempted to end a patient's life quickly for personal gain, avoiding difficult cases or dealing with demanding family members. A notorious example is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who took advantage of his patients' suffering and was responsible for the deaths of 130 ailing individuals. In countries where euthanasia is legal, like the Netherlands, thousands of people are killed annually without their explicit request or consent. Doctors, being human, are susceptible to laziness, selfishness, and temptation. In critical situations, they may make mistakes and poor decisions. Therefore, legalizing euthanasia is unwise.

3. Legalization of euthanasia alters public conscience: Law is a powerful tool that shapes societal beliefs, behavior, and conscience. When practices become legal and widely accepted, they are perceived as right by society, regardless of individual preferences or principles. People trust the law, assuming it serves the public's best interests and is always correct. The case of Marc and Eddy Verbessem, twin brothers born deaf who sought euthanasia after learning

In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence " Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live..." According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.

California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states "This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life."This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.

I accept and wil debate the benefits of euthanasia.#1Euthanasia gives people a choice to die. If they are in severe pain they should be able to have the choice of living and death, and when they have no hope left, it would be unnecessary to let them live if they don't want to. Also death is a private matter and no harm to others. If a patient is unable to choose for himself then a discussion between close friends/family and the doctors should take place to decide what's best for the patient. Also the doctors are paid to satisfy the needs of the patient and if a patient wants to die with dignity then it's a doctors duty to do so. When a pet is ill we put it to sleep as well as an act of mercy and compassion. Why not with humans?#2Keeping a person alive costs a lot of money and putting the patient to sleep would spare money to aid other persons. I would like to point out this should not be the primary reason for euthanasia but it is certainly a benefit.#3I see you're a christian so you would oppose euthanasia because god gave life to every person and life is sacred. This is debatable but not the point of this debate. Going by this logic if God wanted a person to die, the doctors should not bother trying to save him since it's His choice.

You make some very good arguments, I'll try my best to counter them! I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying in regards to the intrinsic/extrinsic social valuing of life. I am not saying that we should keep people alive because we can construe purpose for their lives, I am saying that as a society we should preserve life because it is life, irrespective of the presence of purpose. On a society-wide level, legalising euthanasia establishes that life is only valuable insofar as it is desired, which would make it extrinsic. This is a poisonous attitude to any civil society as it does not respect the human individual, only what they can do or provide. "Why are you so hung up on making this person want to be alive?" Because it is a loving action to do, helping someone find enjoyment in life is a better solution than killing them. I am arguing that it would be a negative step to allow people to choose to die when they wish. People may currently hate their existence on earth but death is permanent, once you are euthanised there is no going back. Honestly I find it hard to imagine that someone depressed enough to be feeling suicidal has the right mental capacity to make such a huge and irreversible choice. If someone is so depressed that they don't want to live anymore, then we should help them change their mind and see the endless potential that life has. As Jules Verne said, 'where there is life there is hope', death is the ultimate way to 'give up' which seems irrational in a world where medical science is advancing so rapidly that cures for seemingly incurable illnesses could just be months away at any given time. I'm sure that Stephen Hawking, when he first descended into invalidity, often decided that he would rather die than live with with ALS. If euthanasia had been legal he could have very possibly been killed and the world would have lost one of the greatest physicists of the century. "However having the option to end your life instead of seek treatment isn't going to cause every single sick person to off themselves." Of course, not everyone will choose to be euthanised. But in the Netherlands it is increasingly becoming the norm for cancer sufferers to seek euthanasia instead of fighting through it (1). People with serious illnesses generally aren't particularly optimistic, and many people will be killed by euthanasia whereas if it was not an option they could have survived and lived fulfilling lives, despite them not even considering a good outcome when they were in the depths of their suffering. "With the medicine we have today, we're able to contain the virus or bacteria or whatever outside of the host's body, so even without a person with the virus, we're still able to conduct tests and research on it." True, but there would be little motivation to do so. If it became normal to be euthanised when suffering from a deadly disease then it would seem less important to find cures. Why is this? Because the point of a cure is to prevent death. If people are asking for death when suffering from said disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without? "If people become less affected by suicide, then good. The way society is evolving is in such a way that moral values should be logically thought out before acting upon them. The death of a loved one will always be upsetting, however if we know they chose this path, and aren't suffering anymore, there should be no logical reason to be upset about it." Suicide is one of the most tragic things that exists in this world; that someone can become so depressed and despairing that they decide to destroy their life. It is logical to assert the immorality of suicide because if it was not, depressed people will not feel obstructed to end their life, despite depression being temporary and mentally-incapacitating to the extent that they cannot be responsible for such a huge decision, which suicide is. I very much doubt that you could find a single person who considered suicide, changed their mind and regretted doing so. Sexual consent is only valid when the partner is in the right mental capacity, so why should suicide-consent be different? On a metaphysical scale, it is also an assumption that death is preferable to suffering whilst alive. The experience of death (or lack thereof) is eschatologically verifiable; so how then can suicide or euthanasia be an informed decision when we only know what one of the alternatives is like? "they wouldn't have helped society anyway. They're happy and we lost someone who didn't want to help us anyway" That is what I was saying in round 1, legalising euthanasia makes people value human life simply because of the value or help they provide to society, not simply because it is life and is good in and of itself. "Keep in mind with your example and others like it, that it wouldn't be euthanasia that caused her death. It would be her own choice. She wants to now, she would want to if euthanasia was legalised. If you say she does bring great joy to her family, I'm sure she would be able to gain their acceptance of her choice if she does decide to end it all. Also, this may be very selfish on our behalf, as we expect the elderly to suffer and dislike their existence simply so we can benefit from their knowledge." The thing is, she goes through a few weeks feeling suicidal, but then recovers and lives life happily for a few months. If we acted upon her cognitively-doubtful decision when she was depressed then she would be deprived of all the happiness she gets when not under the influence of mental illness. Ultimately, euthanasia is far too big a choice to be assumed to be rationally made by people who are mentally sick. "Also, judging by how The Netherlands have legalised euthanasia, the elderly wouldn't be able to end it all simply because they're old. There would need to be a lot more going on." Yes, they wouldn't be able to end their life simply due to old age, but the vast majority of old people have some ailment or another that could be exploited to justify them seeking to end their life out of martyrdom. "As you can see in The Netherlands, euthanasia is legal and regulated, with several heavy requirements to follow through [1]. The point that stands out for me is #5 - There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. This implies that if a "cure" is available, or if it is possible to continue medical research and procedures on the subject, the chance of being accepted for euthanizing is significantly lower. I'm sure we would see similar laws if euthanasia is legalised in North America." Theoretically the law works satisfactorily, but evidence would suggest that the Netherlands is sliding down a slippery slope towards more liberal euthanasia laws. (2) This source suggests that we cannot ring-fence voluntary euthanasia killings without overflows into non-voluntary euthanasia. The simple fact is that doctors are only human; giving them the extraordinary power to grant others life and death does not make them into responsible moral agents. Doctors are physicians not ethicists and cannot be relied upon to relate to suicidal people's wishes and inclinations because they simply aren"t trained for it. This is why in the Netherlands doctors are increasingly being persuaded by relatives and patients to bend the rules or even outright break them, because doctors aren"t professionally endowed to judge non-medical issues. Continuing on the subject of doctors, to ask them to kill patients is to violate the Hippocratic Oath, the vow that maintains the integrity of their whole profession. When people train to be doctors they say that they want to save lives, not destroy them. (1) http://www.mercatornet.com... (2)http://www.bioethics.org.au...

Thank you Mikel for your rebuttal. I looked at your main points very closely and I'll will refute those points using the sources I have found and by doing so, I will try to highlight the all the problems with your argument for assisted suicide and show viewers that your argument doesn't have the moral, psychological, or scientific standing compared to my argument against assisted suicide. I will also defend myself, my sources, and my credibility in this debate and hopefully refute your rebuttal and thus leading the viewers of this debate to side against the proposition. Let me start. First pro point: This will not give Doctors the right to kill people. It gives the person a choice to end their suffering. As I have shown in my argument, with the stories I have shared in this debate. Doctors are usually not given the right to allow assisted of a terminal Ill patient, but it can be in the state's government to right to allow the assisted suicide if such an euthanasia law is put in placed. Also, as It said with my source from nrlc.org, more then 93-94% of the people that are terminal Ill are not in the mental mind to decide to take there life away. So if the person has the right to choice to end their suffering they are doing it in a bad frame of mind and if the pain was reduced and the patient was in sound mind then you can ask them whether or not to die. My source from nrlc.org also said that when pain is reduced then the patient would choice not to commit assisted suicide but to die naturally. Second pro point: Suicide is already not illegal That is true. That is because it is impossible to convict someone to a crime when the person that commits the crime is already died. This is not related at all to the topic at hand and is really not needed to be highlighted apon. Third pro point: This is an act of kindness or moral act So with that logic that means it is morally right to allow the state to allow someone that is suffering from a terminal illness rather then keeping them alive, reducing their pain and allowing them to die naturally like the majority of he population around the world do everyday. This point is not based around logic but is more of a vision of a reality that soft and flowery. Everything that can be considered living suffers. Animals suffer, planet suffer and even the small skin cell suffers and that leads to the living substance to naturally death. As this point seems to put it, we should allow to people to die unnaturally to avoid the thing that connects humans to humans and living substance to living substance that perfectcally naturally, pain and suffering. Fourth and finally point from pro: Everyone persons body is their own, and the right of life is their choice It is true that that everyone humans body is their own, I can not disagree with that. But with with my source from nrlc.org, it shows that most terminal Ill patients suffer from a mental disorder and depression caused by the illness and are not in the right mind state understand the choice at hand or taking their own life away. Studies from my source in nrlc.org also highlight that that if the right methods and techniques where used, the patient would rather choice dying naturally then dying from assisted suicide. I also highlight the stories of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup and highlight how the state of Oregon tried to push Wanger and Stroup to allow themselves to be assisted suicide rather then give them treatment they needed and how the state ether than using the advise from trained doctors pushed Cheney to death when if she was treated for depression she would have choice to die naturally. Now I shall defend myself and my views Quotes from pro: "In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of" Assisted suicide was taken advantage. Read my statements about what happened in Oregon and see that it was taken advantage of and that it wasn't just a theory but real life telling of how and why assisted suicide was taken advantage of. Pro missed the point that the stories I used was to highlight what happens when euthanasia law whether regulated or not can be used by the state as a way of backing out of health care payments. Put this forward a clear as possible and yet the pro still does not see the harm these laws have done and what these laws may do if passed in poorer or more populated states. Quote from pro: "Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant" Why is the mental state of the patient irrelevant to this debate. Only a small number (6-7%) of terminal ill patients have the mental power to decide on whether or not to allow themselves to be assisted suicide and hidi png out which takes time and money that could be used on reducing the pain allowing a less painfully and more naturally path to death. Quote from pro: "(Con) ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in." As I said before, as humans we all suffer. Yes terminal Ill patients suffer a lot of pain and I also hate to see people suffer but it is not something you can avoid or should avoid. Suffering is a naturally thing and all humans feel and not just according to me but to trained medical professtionals like Dr. Kubler-Ross understand that suffering and feeling depressed about it is part of dealing with death. We can reduce the suffering of the terminal Ill patient to allow themselves to die naturally. I end here but telling the viewers to lot over all the results and to see who follower the guidelines of the debate better and to see which one of used more sounded logic and better sources. Mikel, thank you for allowing me to think long and hard about this topic, it is an important topic and I thank you for bringing it up. Now viewers, I hope that you read all the arguments and rebuttals and pick the side you think should win. Do not feel pressured, but follow with your brain and fell with your heart. Thank you!

I will argue that euthanasia should not be prohibited by law and that it is not morally wrong. I look forward to a good debate and I hope we both enjoy it.

Do not worry about your spelling mistakes as its a safe bet that I will make more even on the best computer ;) "Some people who are physically or mentally ill are usually incapable. .. ." Thank God. I am a trained EMT, and I can tell you that people who are deemed mentally ill have no right to choice in rejection of treatment for regular injury's that are not related to a suicide attempt. or even the choice to not go to the hospital. Why? because there mind is not in its best shape, and it is considered negligent to leave them uncared for and we know someone called us to the scene even if it wasn't the injured person. What are some good indicators of mental illness? well desire for suicide is one, so we have a self sustaining circle that keeps adheeding to there choice of death an option for us. The only way to be out of the circle with that choice is if you made it ahead of time with a DNR order and we find the DNR tag on your neck. such decisions are considered in your good mental state and they are not request for suicide, just a peaceful death when the time naturally comes. ". .. . or frightened of killing them self, therefore want someone to do it for them. " There is a good reason they are frightened of it. Fear is our body warning us of something quite often, the fact that so many have this fear in common show it is not irrational fear caused by mental illness. "As a liberal society we should look at this from the victims perspective and how damaged they must feel not knowing how long they are going to live? When the pains going to stop? , So why is it taken in such a crude way? ." They have asked for something crazy. with the logic that they desire no more pain, and equated that with death. but death is so much more than lack of pain. and pain sometimes ends in this life without the aid of death. This testimony comes from other EMS members I know who have been it way longer than I have. You remember the DNR order I mentioned? well even in those cases were it seems its time to die and the person has a DNR there have been cases that the individual with the DNR have used what breath and strength they had to grab the EMT and get out the words 'I want to live'. one individual had the DNR logo tattooed to his chest . http://justinsomnia.org... just so the EMT's wouldn't miss when they came but changes there mind when the moment of truth comes. This shows us that a decision for death perspectively has a tendency to change right before its about to happen. what if someone asked for you to invoke there suicide and after its about to happen they have lost any ability to let you know they are changing there mind. If we are to accept ones right to choose death in any situation it can only be done by the individual themselves, for they have to keep there commitment all the way to the moment the deed is done. the know there thoughts. there can be no failure to communicate a change of mind. "The weight of life varies f rom one person to another. In other words, life is just a relative value. .. .. " Uh, No. Just because I end up with more responsibilities on my back than you do does not make it less valuable, or more valuable. Just because you might have a deeper hole you have to dig yourself out of in life does not make yours more or less valuable than mine. You are worth something simply because 'you are. ' The reason life is treated as inherently valuable is because it is. it is from this foundation that we learn that things like slavery or any form of social inequality are wrong, the situation of another does not make them less than us in respect to life so we should be humane in our treatment of others. Breaking this foundational holding by justifying suicide of course will not lead back to these evils immediately but every great evil starts with a more unnoticeable evil. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. "Im not saying euthanasia/assisted suicide should be use in all cases of illness, but i do believe it should be a choice for people who are desperately ill so they are reassured" reassured of what? that things will be good for them after there suicide? "Death is an option that people should have because death is similar to the options we already have. We are allowed to take risky choices for our own benefit, such as tobacco, or alcohol, as long as we know the consequences of the act. " We know absolutely nothing about the consequences of death. have you died before? was it for 3 days? a week? tell me what it is like. tell me of someone who knows for sure deaths mysteries. what happens after Death is as unknown as it gets for the world. . http://familydoctor.org...

it's good to practise the debating skills :) i might take a leaf out of your book and get into a debate but go opposite my actual beliefs :) okay co yeah there are other options like further treatment, but the treatment if continued can have side-effects"Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects" also as their illness is terminal, "By definition, there is no cure or adequate treatment" so if they continue the treatment, they are going to die anyway. The aim for them is to chose the way they die and not let the illness run the end of its course.

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.

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.


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

Assisted Suicide: A Matter of Choice, Compassion, and Rights

The debate over assisted suicide and physician-assisted euthanasia has long been a contentious issue across the United States. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether a terminally ill patient has the right to choose to end their life with the assistance of a medical professional. The arguments for and against this right are deeply rooted in religious, moral, and ethical considerations.

Opponents often cite religious beliefs and the sanctity of life as reasons to prohibit assisted suicide. They argue that life is sacred and should not be prematurely ended, even in cases of unbearable suffering. On the other hand, advocates for assisted suicide emphasize compassion, the alleviation of suffering, and the individual's right to self-determination. They believe that competent, terminally ill adults should have the autonomy to choose how and when they end their suffering.

Physicians, too, are divided on the issue. Some argue that assisting in suicide goes against the Hippocratic Oath, which obligates doctors to preserve life and do no harm. However, critics of this view point out that the Hippocratic Oath, in its original form, is not universally used in medical schools today and that its principles are often at odds with modern medical practices, particularly in end-of-life care. For instance, chemotherapy, a common treatment for cancer, can be considered a form of "deadly medicine" due to its toxic side effects. Thus, adhering to the Hippocratic Oath in its strictest sense can sometimes mean prolonging suffering rather than alleviating it.

For many terminally ill patients, the option of assisted suicide represents a way to end their suffering with dignity. They may be in great physical and emotional agony, with no hope of recovery, and see assisted suicide as the only means to bring their suffering to a peaceful end. The desire for assisted suicide is not merely a matter of giving up but is often a reflection of a deep respect for life and a wish to avoid unnecessary pain and distress for themselves and their loved ones.

Moreover, the financial impact of prolonged end-of-life care on families cannot be ignored. The high cost of medical treatment for terminally ill patients can lead to significant financial strain and even bankruptcy for families. Allowing assisted suicide can provide relief from these burdens, allowing families to focus on providing emotional support and comfort to their loved ones in their final days.

The issue of competence is also crucial in the debate over assisted suicide. Critics argue that terminally ill patients may not be in a

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...

I agreed not to make arguments in this round, so I'm limiting myself to some summary and a couple clarifications. Clarification: I argued "assisted suicide" because of a misunderstanding. I thought Pro was arguing only for euthanasia, because the title doesn't say anything about "assisted suicide. " After I realized the mistake, I dropped "assisted suicide" entirely. I switched gears to arguing against it. There's ambiguity about what the resolution is -- is it solely about euthanasia or does it include assisted suicide? This was unclear so I dropped assisted suicide. For purposes of this debate, then, I argue against assisted suicide. All of my contentions apply both to euthanasia and assisted suicide. I want to clarify that my arguments are aimed at both, because Pro mistakenly thinks I support assisted suicide. Don't punish me for Pro's misunderstanding. Summary: Euthanasia gives doctors the right to kill terminally ill patients. I argued based on that fact that euthanasia undermines equality, corrupts doctors, deprives suicide of meaning, and leads down a slope to involuntary euthanasia. I gave two alternatives: the status quo, where things remain as they are now, with euthanasia illegal, and my other option that we make deadly drugs available. Pro's arguments are that euthanasia improves autonomy and saves money. I argued that this isn't true, and I argued that my proposal for deadly drugs does those things better -- autonomy and costs -- while not falling prey to any of the harms of euthanasia. Thanks for the debate.

Euthanasia devalues human life Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death There is a "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.

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.

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

Does that mean you are changing your point on the 1 year cut off? And once again you are changing what you said by saying the teen would be able to choose for themselves. Initially you stated those who could legally make medical decisions would be able to and minors are unable to make said decisions on their own. it is instead their legal guardians right to make medical decisions. no choosing to have your child murdered I do not believe is a loving act. Back to my point of the ability to have a cure found I believe it is much more loving to instill the hope in your child and love of life. Your point from earlier with that some palliative care methods do have adverse side effects does have some merit. Yes, high amounts of narcotics have negative effects that even if a cure was found might have lingering adverse side effects. Having to deal with those side effects I personally feel would be worth it to be alive. One of these adverse side effects that is extremely common in pro longed use is depression. (https://www.pbinstitute.com...) Since most people with terminal illness have been on opioids for extended periods their chance at depression is higher. This gives yet another reason as to why more questions should be answered before euthanasia is legalized. I concede to you that it is a good idea you have swayed me to thinking of it as an option. My issue still lies in that much has to be discussed and pin pointed before any laws could be passed to allow it.

California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states "This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life."This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.

Thank you for your wonderful argument. "VALUE: Relief of suffering; suffering is generally accepted as an awful phenomenon. The individual is hurt in some way, unjustly, and simple morality holds that relieving pain is a good, moral, just thing to do." Well, then my VALUE: Deprivation of pleasure; pleasure is generally accepted as an awesome phenomenon. The individual is gratified in some way, and simple morality holds that allowing people to live their lives in pleasure is a good, moral, just thing to do. A. Counter-Arguments "AI. To live is to suffer." My opponent's first argument is that to live is to suffer. True, life sometimes includes suffering; however, life also includes pleasure, which cannot be ignored. My opponent's first source says, "Faith, art, love, friendship and mental attitudes are among the ways of minimizing and overcoming the cruelty of the world." Death is not listed. Suffering can be overcome by the above things, and many people have done so already. To deprive someone of their life that is no longer filled with suffering, but instead filled with pleasure, would be unjust. "In life, there is nothing we can truly accomplish..." However, this does not actually add anything to my opponent's argument. Just because life makes no real impact on anything, doesn't mean that death is preferable. One has even less influence in death, and death is eternal, while life is finite. Life is the only chance to actually enjoy anything. To deprive somebody of this one opportunity to impact the lives of others would be unjust. "In life, there is no real pleasure..." In the same light, there is no real suffering. We are simply manipulated by chemical hormones to perceive suffering. "Pain and pleasure, in the broad sense of these words, are respectively the negative and positive affects, or hedonic tones, or valences that psychologists often identify as basic in our emotional lives. The evolutionary role of physical and mental suffering, through natural selection, is primordial: it warns of threats, motivates coping (fight or flight, escapism), and reinforces negatively certain behaviors (see punishment, aversives). Despite its initial disrupting nature, suffering contributes to the organization of meaning in an individual's world and psyche. In turn, meaning determines how individuals or societies experience and deal with suffering." [1] This suffering comes from danger to subsistence. The nervous system simply sends pulses of pain to the brain to warn it of threats to the body, such as an attacking dog or a flame on the shoe. And so, both pleasure and pain are simply caused by hormones, so to dismiss one as meaningless is to dismiss the other, as well. However, because we feel both pleasure and pain as very real, they still allow us to experience, and hope to experience more pleasure than pain. "So, life is not good." My opponent only draws this conclusion from a completely pessimistic way, overlooking pleasure and calling it hormones, while aggrandizing suffering. "Philosophers, religious and secular, have further noted that life is but perennial, inevitable suffering..." The satisfaction comes from those hormones my opponent previously mentioned. As does the suffering. Sometimes, life is bad. Sometimes, life is good. The goal of life is to make life good more often than bad. If you want evidence, listen to Video 1 http://www.youtube.com... (3:15), although you really should listen to the whole thing). "But if it doesn't work out, there'll never be any doubt that the pleasure was worth all the pain." - Jimmy Buffett I ask you, my opponent, if somebody just declared that all of the pain in the rest of their life would be worth the pleasure of what he was about to do, would murdering that man be just? "AII. Ending suffering is morally upright..." Again, I can turn this around so that it negates itself when it comes to life: Ending pleasure is morally wrong. The ending of pleasure is inherently wrong. While pleasure may distract from other duties, pleasure is a gift to be enjoyed. General morality holds that pleasure and enjoyment should be maximized. Elimination of pleasure is a horrible step in moral wrongness. "AIII. To murder is to relieve life, and therefore to relieve suffering..." I wave my magic wand, and: To murder is to end life, and therefore to end pleasure. To relieve pleasure is generally a horrible, despicable, terrible, unjust thing to do. Therefore, the resolution is negated. It should be fairly obvious by now that pleasure and suffering are two sides of the coin of life, and one generally cannot be completely eliminated without eliminating the other, although most consider the pleasure to be worth the pain. (See Jimmy Buffett.) As for my opponent's syllogism, the only problem is that it assumes that life is suffering, while life is actually a combination of both suffering and pleasure. To end pleasure is morally wrong, so by continuing the syllogism for pleasure rather than suffering, one would conclude that murder is both just and unjust, which is logically impossible. Therefore, it depends on whether or not the relief of pleasure was worth the relief of suffering. In most cases, it is not. "There is no such thing as an afterlife..." The case against an afterlife is a bold one, although it is backed by no evidence. There is no evidence against a supernatural soul living on beyond the death of the natural nervous system, and as an afterlife would generally be supernatural, we are unable to draw any definite conclusions. "In all cases, the individual benefits from this nirvana." Nirvana is the lack of pleasure and lack of suffering, although my opponent finally chooses this time to be the optimist. Now, consider this situation: you are told that you will enter a room and play a game in which you either receive pleasure or pain for one week, then step out and spend the rest of your life doing and thinking about absolutely nothing. However, you can step out of this room at any time. Will you end this one chance to actually experience something, or would you rather just go right on into nothing, and had you the ability to think, you'd regret not using your one chance in a better way? "Further, no objection can deny my syllogism." I had one objection, that the premise was incomplete in its assumption, therefore invalidating the entire syllogism. Now, allow me to introduce one more thing before I had over the debate to my opponent. B1. Murder Causes Suffering in Others [2] This suffering is also known as mourning. When somebody that you were close to dies, you feel pain and suffering, missing their presence. Therefore, in addition to the near-neutrality of the murder in question, there is also the additional suffering that it causes to others. C. Syllogism 1. To cause suffering is morally bad. (Inverse of AII, also note that my negation only applied to life, and not suffering caused by murder) 2. Murder almost always causes suffering. (NI) 3. Murder is almost always morally bad. (Substitution, lines 1 and 2) 4. Murder is almost never morally good. (Inverse of 4) 5. Something is just if and only if it is morally good. [3] 6. Murder is almost never just. (Substitution, lines 4 and 5) This syllogism is even more solid than my opponent's, as it does not have the flip-side of pleasure. The resolution is negated. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Abortion should be legalized because everybody mistakes and the baby might have defects that family can not support and the baby might be in pain for life with that defect. Sometimes young women make mistakes and accidentally get pregnant, if they are unprepared financially and emotionally they should have the option of having an abortion. When the person finds out the baby has a defect and the family can't support the costs to support the child or the child will live in pain for his/her life because of the defect, it is ok to put it out of its misery.

If you knew you didn't have much time left would you let every moment count or quickly end your death? patients of doctors sometimes die, but do they kill them? Those are some questions that maybe if you ask yourself you will begin to turn more to my side of the argument. By the way I know I complain and that is my downfall. I never say thanks when things turn out good, but when things go wrong I'm angry and upset. I remember hearing in a rap song by Lacrea called I did it for you. "Every funeral, cats get upset and cry Turn their heads towards the sky trying to ask God why But they never looked up till then Every other day they concerned with the world and consumed in sin" I feel like it speaks to me because I know when something turns bad I sometimes tend to blame god, when it's not his fault, But Why do people turn to him when they don't believe in him( sorry for getting off topic). What about everything that was good that happened to me. I tend to not say a word and thank no one. Also remember you might have a ruff life, but there's always those other people who would change their life with yours in an instant. It's a cycle you want what he has, when he wants what another person has. You might be living under a bridge, but that person over their is living in the wide open with no shelter to cover himself from the ran with. By the way A person could come back from a coma at anytime. It is unpredictable and a lot of times not even the doctor knows when the patient will be able to get back to their normal life. You make it seem like Alzheimer's disease isn't that bad. When a person first gets it they might just forget the little things, but as time goes on they start to forget almost everything. The eventually become like babies. You would consider putting to sleep someone with a coma, but not someone with Alzheimer's disease. You said it yourself, it can get pretty expensive, especially for an unresponsive person. Euthanasia is against what I believe because I believe suicide is wrong. People try to describe Euthanasia as mercy killing, when it's not. It is suicide because the person wants to die. The definition of suicide is The action of killing oneself intentionally, so should this not be considered suicide? They are killing themselves because they want to, not because they have to. By the way if you ask someone an opinion, you can't just disagree with them. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. So if I say I will take that chance, who are you to tell me that I won't? Sorry for how sloppy this post was, but its running late and im getting pretty tired so im just gonna leave it like that.