Question: Should the Practice of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legitimized by Law?

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should not be legal. It's true that death is inevitable, but using that fact to justify euthanasia is akin to justifying barbaric practices such as dowry deaths, genocide, and infant abandonment. Just because everyone dies doesn't mean we have the right to decide when that happens. Legalizing euthanasia because people do it anyway is like legalizing drugs. The end result is the same: an innocent person loses their life. Euthanasia is illegal because murder is illegal. While I don't equate those who help a family member with physician-assisted suicide to murderers, the outcome is the same. The family might feel guilt, but the act is the deliberate taking of a loved one's life. Counseling should be available, but the fact remains that having a doctor end a loved one's life doesn't alleviate the guilt of consenting to and facilitating their death. Euthanasia is the taking of a person's life and should not be legal. Life is not always good, but it is valuable and should be respected. Real compassion means loving people regardless of their condition and encouraging them that they are loved and precious, even in pain. Suffering at the end of life does not diminish a person's worth. We all suffer at times, and that suffering provides opportunities for growth. Life is a mix of good and bad, but always valuable and to be respected. We should not make people suffer, but we should not kill them either. Medicine is meant to heal, and death is not healing. The state has a duty to protect the best interest of the people, and death is never a better scenario than life. If we support euthanasia, it's like supporting teen suicide. Our illnesses don't define us, and even in pain, we are not our suffering. We are unique human beings with dignity that cannot be taken away. Killing a person violates their dignity. Some argue that we have no right to force someone to live, but we have no right to take their life either. Economically, ending a sick person's life saves money, but it reduces people to numbers, costs, and liabilities. A utilitarian outlook that estimates a person's worth based on their productivity leads to eugenic policies that seek to eliminate the weak and less-than-perfect. Providing treatment can advance medicine, create jobs, and preserve people. Pain does not make us any less human, and often the most inspiring people are those who overcome great suffering. People should not have

Yes I understand your argument that it should not be offered as a can of coke. However that's what will happen. Many sucide attemptee do not seek/ will NOT listen to medical advice and will NOT listen to their family. I thought I already talked about this with a real life story of one of my teachers. The LAST thing the government needs to administer are death options. The Death penalty is already cruel enough we do not need to give people the option to die if they do not have any painful/ physical problems. Like I said the main cause of suicide is spiked depression. The victim will shut her/himself to outside contact and become a shell and seek a way out.... Many times people just commit suicide to cope with that depression. Also again no qualms about administering asked euthanasia for people with painful tragedies that have no cure. Instead of encouraging euthanisa or the EASY way out we need to encourage rehabilitation. Right now all I hear from you is that they get counseling and lots of time.... but if you don't actually take care of the problem that's all going to be for nothing and they will just choose the euthanasia option. Lots of suicides are prevented by informing the authority and having that person take medical drugs or be in mental hosptals If the euthanasia option was available for that teacher he would've done it. He would have. He wouldn't have his happy life. He wouldn't have his new job or his new wife or his new kid. None of that. Because he took the easy way out

My position is that euthanasia should be available to anyone who wishes to kill themselves. I am not stating that everyone will have easy access to euthanasia like they have access to a can of Coke. There must be counselling, talking with the families, and a lot of time to reconsider the decision. This is important because the individual cannot be making this decision because of treatable mental health issue or a sudden whim of emotion. This must be a rational decision based on their conviction about life. Humans are just randomly thrown into life. If life is forced upon humans, should not humans have freedom to dispose of it freely? For example, let's say that gift that a person does not like is forcefully given to the person. The person should have the freedom to dispose of the gift, since the person does not like the gift and was given of gift against his will. The fact that it was given does not make it necessity that the person should appreciate it. And it is obvious that there is a point where life will not worth the existence. If a person finds meaningless and has considerable evidence that life will continue that way, life is simply not worth the existence. It is cruel that such a existence must continue. Death is something that all humans must go through. If a person decides that he wants to go through it early, there should be no stopping of it. Suicide by hanging, shooting, or any other methods are susceptible to failed attempts and can be really painful. Allowing euthanasia for everyone who wants it will allow them to die painlessly and peacefully.

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

When you say there is no treatment and no hope for the terminally ill it simply isn't true. Medicine is not only used to help with pain, it can extend the life of a terminally ill person, and there may even be a way in the future to cure any illness. There are other ways to manage pain e. g. taking your mind off it. . http://www.gcu.ac.uk... No-one wants to suffer, or see someone close suffer, and if told by a doctor they have no hope of getting better, it is easier to focus on ending that pain rather than thinking about positive things and others that make you happy which lessons pain. People are generally selfish, they think that having an extra right is always a good thing and having less rights is a bad thing, but often fail to think what it would mean if people can have an assisted death. Wanting to end your own pain is not selfish, however ending your pain by killing yourself is definitely selfish as you'd be thinking of yourself and not others. Not wanting to see your family see you suffer is not a good reason to kill yourself and doesn't mean you're thinking of others since killing yourself is not the only way to stop others see you in pain. Whether you suffer or not is determined by your way of thinking. Not all people who are terminally ill want assisted death, this is proof that it is possible for everyone to enjoy life, find meaning to the very end. Would you like to be invited to a party but at the end you watch a family member die? Even if you don't watch, you'd have a last vivid memory of them moments before they died instead of remember something positive from yesterday or another time. They might say goodbye but those words would hurt. You may not support their decision, but you'd have to come and support them through being there or else you might not get along very well with your family. Isn't it wrong for someone to kill them self believing they are a burden and things will be better without them? Making assisted suicide legal would send the wrong message that suicide is okay sometimes. Somebody who wants to kill them self is mentally ill! Pain and disability is not a good reason to kill yourself. All life is worth living, allowing certain people to kill them self devalues life. No respect will be given to those who need it most for example those who are disabled and in pain, more people will die by assisted suicide. People with disabilities who choose to get on with their life won't want to hear people say they are ending their life before they become like them. Terminally ill people are not simply choosing one death over another, they are choosing to die earlier as a result of having a mistaken belief. I'd much rather choose to suffer with pain and feel it is worth living than die earlier feeling my life is not worth living, even if my actual death is a bit less painful. Death happens pretty quickly and is nothing to fear. We should strive to enjoy life to the fullest whatever our condition. People who are paralyzed and so feel no pain but who have a terminal illness might still want an assisted death due to suicidal thoughts. Eventually everyone will be able to kill themselves and people will not value your life or anyone else's. Legalizing assisted death means less funding for cures, less reason to seek cures. The easy quick solution to an illness will be taken - help them kill themself - it saves money. People's lives won't mean anything. Is it right to give a suicidal man a knife so he has the option to slit his throat, or should we tell him that life is worth living. Having options sounds like a good thing but some options are best not having. The mom in the video I posted is made to feel worthless, anyone in pain would want to end pain, her daughter says she'd rather her mum die. This is not what is best for her mum even if that is what she says at that time. The mother openly discriminates against disabled people saying that she'd rather die before she is disabled. People who suddenly become disabled will really struggle to find new meaning in life. In the other video, the girl can't understand the choice she was making, one she is too young, she was told about heaven when she is impressionable. If someone doesn't choose assisted death no-one will be counting the days on the calendar, they will carry on living their life without guilt. Knowing exactly when someone is going to die is not comforting, if you are in pain and thinking the pain will end then, you are looking forward to dying i. e. not existing, rather than looking to enjoy life while you can. Without assisted death the whole family probably won't witness the terminally ill member die, they might die peacefully in their sleep. Gathering the whole family and friends to witness you kill your self will not make you value your life more or think of positive times. You'll probably be looking at people who didn't turn up etc. Saying 'no' to assisted suicide is not making any decision for them. It is possible to shorten your life already by refusing treatment and die in dignity. No-one is saying 'terminally ill should suffer', people want others to value the life they have and value other people. Thanks for having this debate with me.

So, having said her final goodbye to her husband, the wife is sitting in the departure lounge at Zurich Airport reading an English-language newspaper and she is aghast when she reads a headline: "CURE FOUND FOR THE DREADED LURGI". The dreaded lurgi was her recently-departed husband's condition. "Oh dear! " she exclaimed, "if only I hadn't agreed to help him commit suicide, we could have had a family together after all. Still, never mind, there's no point crying over spilt milk. On the plus side the house all belongs to me now, and, of course, the life insurance money will be of some comfort to me in my time of grief. " So, we can see that, in this case, a young man killed himself in vain, and it is similar to the case my opponent cited where a young woman "miraculously" recovered just before the doctors killed her because it would have been very different if she had taken the lethal dose a few weeks earlier. Then she too would have died needlessly. But what about the suicide clinics position in all this? In most countries in the developed world health care is funded by the state so that treatment provided according to need rather than the ability to pay. However, in the United States health care is run along commercial lines. With this being the case, suicide clinics will be in it for the profit and the primary responsibility of the clinics' management will be to the shareholders rather than the patients, creating an obvious potential for conflicts of interest. Let's look at the way estate agents are remunerated, for example. The more houses they sell, the more they get paid, so there is an obvious incentive for them not to be completely open and honest and about properties with potential buyers. It's a similar situation with used car salesmen, or investment bankers, or lawyers, or any amount of other professions where pay is performance-related. So will we see doctors in suicide clinics paid according to how many patients they kill? I hope not, but even so, there will be pressure on them to make money for the clinic. Let's now consider the position of a physician in a suicide clinic, Doctor Kindheart, who is very conscientious and who ensures that no patient takes their own life unless there is absolutely no possibility of recovery and their decision was wholly their own made without any undue influence from their family. However, this professional approach means that he assists many fewer patients to take their lives than his colleague, Doctor Snuff, who dispatches patients on a wholesale basis without due regard for medical ethics. One day the hospital manager calls Dr Kindheart into his office. "What the hell are you playing at, Kindheart? " the manager rants. "The Cohens are our best clients, we've euthanized three wealthy relatives of theirs so far this year but when you and Dr Snuff were asked to sign off the fourth, you refused to play ball. " The manager then takes out a report and reads from it. "Dr Snuff"s considered medical opinion," he says, "is that 'the patient is suffering from acute Allergic rhinitis with severe complications. It is only a matter of time before the patient dies and his life isn't worth living', while you have concluded that 'the patient is suffering from allergic rhinitis, more commonly known as hay fever, which is a treatable condition and not, in itself, fatal. The patient's condition is complicated by the fact that he is also clinically depressed and, therefore, is not in a fit state of mind to give his consent to be euthanized. ' What do you say to that, Kindheart? " "My report," replied Dr Kindheart, "was written in strict accordance with the guidelines and, furthermore, I consider it my professional duty to protect the interests of vulnerable patients from abuse of the system from families with vested interests in their deaths. In this case, as beneficiaries of the patient's estate and I concluded that the Cohen family had put their own financial interests ahead of the patient's best interests. I'm sorry, sir, but I firmly believe in upholding medical ethics. " "Screw medical ethics, Kindheart," raged the manager "I'm running a business here, not a charity, and unless you get your act together you'll be heading for the door. Now get out of my office and get back to what I pay you to do: that's kill patients. " That manager is not a very nice man, is he boys and girls? But ruthless businessmen operating in cut-throat commercial marketplaces where competition is fierce cannot afford to be nice and that's another reason why I affirm that assisted suicide should not be legalized in the United States. Thank you.

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

Thank you :) Con. You are doing very well yourself. To counter my opponent"s case, I believe his arguments contains many fallacies that may render his argument as insufficient. Here is a list of the fallacies I will mention within my debate: Slippery-Slope- asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen (1). Inductive Fallacy- It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it (2). False equivalence- describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none (3). Argument from silence- where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence (4). -- In Con"s first refutation, he states: "My opponent attempts to refute my first argument by appealing to the fact that the patient will die anyway, irrespective of whether or not they ask for euthanasia. However, surely this logic can be applied to all human life? We will all die at some point, so surely our whole lives are terminal? The logic fails because the fact that we will die eventually does not render it inconsequential to end our lives prematurely. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no reason why we shouldn't commit suicide here and now." Through this statement, my opponent uses a false equivalence fallacy (3) because he attempts to state that an individual"s life (not affected by a terminal illness) is equivalent to a terminal patient"s life because everyone will die once they grow older. The use of this fallacy makes his argument insufficient because he is trying to point out a logical equivalence between the two when there is none. While I agree with my opponent on the fact that some terminally ill people can live out the last year or so of their life experiencing many new things before they pass, he assumes that this is the case for most patients. Some patients may be too ill to experience anything outside of their hospital room, which he fails to recognize. Also, he provides no explanation as to why my argument, that it will give patients a sense of control, is insufficient. A patient should have the right to die if they choose that option, instead of forcibly having their life dragged out through life support. -- Again, in my opponent"s next rebuttal, he states: "However the example of a few people is not sufficient to outweigh all the negatives that will result from legalising euthanasia." While I do agree that my example of Brittany Maynard can"t stand for every terminally ill patient, Con fails to realize that his evidence can"t stand for every terminal patient as well. In this part of his argument, he uses an inductive fallacy (2) because he claims that based on his light evidence that he has provided, most patients are mentally unstable. Therefore, due to his hasty conclusion, the option of euthanasia should not be available to any terminal patient. My opponent also goes on to talk about modern medicine improving all the time to help alleviate some pain. While this could help patients out greatly, it should still be their individual choice. Measures could be taken to make sure people know all of their options, are mentally stable, and have thought their decision out before choosing euthanasia. He stated that many terminal patients suffer from depression due to their illness, but depression can often be treated with medication and therapy to alleviate the psychological hindrance. If the depression is alleviated, than a sound judgment can be made by the patient themselves. -- In Con"s next argument, he continues to repeat himself on the fact that terminally ill patients cannot be trusted to make a decision like this. As I said in my rebuttal above, steps could potentially be taken to ensure a more stable judgment from the terminal patient. In response to his statement that my list saying that patients would decide based on their beliefs, Con states that this list is too "idealistic." I can see where he could have concluded that, but it is naive for him to assume that people will, because some other patients may choose euthanasia, end up choosing euthanasia because it is the "norm." For example, let"s take a look at Debate.org (and I am in no way saying that these are equivalent in any way, but this does help support the point that I will make). Every day, many people on this website debate their opinions on important controversial topics such as this one. How often do people budge from their own views on topics though? Am I budging on my opinion that euthanasia should be legalized? Are you? While some people may be influenced by the opinions of others around them, I believe that it is human nature to stick to your own beliefs. So in this case, why would it become the "norm" for people to choose euthanasia? If it were legalized, people who opposed euthanasia wouldn't"t just abandoned all of their previous beliefs, and their children would be raised in a household that opposes such an option. There is no proof that his argument would in fact occur. Through most of his arguments, he applies the slippery-slope fallacy (1). He assumes that if the choice to use euthanasia becomes available, than many severely negative outcomes will result. -- In response to Con"s argument that the use of euthanasia will severely handicap medical research for cures, I believe this is to concrete of a conclusion. I will reply simply with one main idea that ties into my argument from above. On the grounds that there will potentially be patients that oppose euthanasia as a treatment due to their beliefs, there will still be patients for researchers to observe different illnesses. Also, in regards to researching diseases to find cures, scientists can examine human cadavers that died from a terminal illness to research for a cure just as much as an alive person. Cures don"t have to come from observing a patient and how they progress through their disease, but they can come from examining the disease on a chemical/molecular level (which can be observed post-mortem). So observations could still be made post-mortem and through patients not wanting euthanasia. -- In my opponent"s last argument, he attempts to point out that I had not adequately responded to his point that you could employ regulations because I stated that "the option would most likely only be offered to terminally ill patients, not just average elderly people.' He, however, is the one that inadequately responds to my argument because he states that, "the fact remains that most terminally ill patients are actually elderly." He fails to hold a sound argument because with this, he exhibits the fallacy argument from silence (4). Con has no evidence that most terminally ill patients are in fact elderly, and he may be falsely assuming this because most elderly patients are in fact only reaching the end of their lifespan (dying due to old age). While terminally ill patients may very well be elderly in some cases, in others they may not be, making his argument insufficient. -- I would like to also point out another argument that I felt was important to bring forth. Some people that oppose euthanasia point out their belief that it is an unnatural way to die. I do not know if Con agrees with this notion, but I will go on to explain how this argument is insufficient. The reason this argument is often false is because, more often than not with terminal patients, their lives are dragged out in equally unnatural ways. A terminal patient that is hooked up to life support, for example, wouldn't survive naturally without the assistance of a machine. People shouldn't be deprived of the choice to be taken off these treatments that are essentially unnaturally dragging out their suffering because others don"t morally accept euthanasia as a proper choice to be allowed. -- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

How ironic as am I! I do not believe there should be an age requirement but again their should be certain criteria that needs to be met such as a terminal illness even among children. I believe that even a young child has the right to end their suffering no matter how hard it may be for the parents and it pains me to think of a situation in which this might happen but I think we can all [pretty much agree that the parent is more likely to cling to false hope when it comes to their child and demand that they fight when it is clear that the child does not want to fight anymore. Everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do with their life regardless of their age. In the case of a parent they would not be the one suffering so I do not believe it should be their right to tell their child that they are not aloud to end their suffering when there is no hope for recovery. I can understand the parents desperation as I am a parent myself and I desperately hope that my child never has to deal with a circumstance like this and I sympathize with any parent that has had to deal with this as it is the most difficult that we can possibly go through. I only hope that I would have the strength to respect my childs wish and end their suffering. For A child to make such a decision takes courage beyond measure and I personally don't think I would have the strength to support my childs decision to end their life even if I knew it was for the best because I love her so much and if it came to a situation like the one we've discussed I believe I would be too weak to let her go.

Miracle cure: In response to the previous argument of a miracle cure. Euthanasia isn't a decision someone takes lightly obviously. "Should we end treatment?" "Should we consider or overlook possible cures?" all these things go through a patient's mind. The government should not make the decision for the patient. If it's the patient's life he/ she should make the decision. With consent of course. Saving other lives: Con, also mentioned we could save lives without euthanasia through research. Surely, with euthanasia lives could also be saved. In two ways actually..... One way is that vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others.We have long waiting lists for hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs that are necessary to save the lives of people who can be saved. Doctor-assisted suicide allows physicians to preserve vital organs that can be donated to others (assuming the patients are organ donors). However, if certain diseases are allowed to run their full course, the organs may weaken or cease to function altogether. Once again, we have to put the needs of the living ahead of the needs of the dying. Also, nurse and doctor time can be freed up to work on savable patients.We face a critical shortage of medical staff in this country, especially nurses. Recent studies have confirmed the obvious--that understaffed hospitals make more mistakes and provide lesser quality care. And things are only going to get worse as the baby boom generation gets older and life spans increase. We have to ask ourselves if attending to dying patients (who want to die immediately) is the best use of medical staff time. Think of how many lives we can save if that nurse & doctor time is freed up. Think of how much the quality of care would increase. Depression: Give me a reason why a person with depression can't kill themselves. Really, I'm mean if a person wants to kill themselves from depression whose bussiness is it. Your life won't be affected, my life won't affected, the voters' lives won't be affected, unless they are family of a patient of course. Answer to question: Yes, I would rather see the dead man. :) Family: Pain and anguish of the patient's family and friends can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes.Friends and family of the patient often suffer as much or more pain as the patient himself. It's difficult to see a loved one in such anguish for so long. It's emotional and physically draining to have the stress drawn out for so long. And when the patient does eventually die, it's often sudden or it follows a period when the patient has lost consciousness. Doctor-assisted suicide would give the patient a chance to say his final goodbyes and end his life with dignity. Fundemental Right: The right to die should be a fundamental freedom of each person.Nowhere in the constitution does it state or imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide. After all, if the patient and the family agree it's what they want to do, who's business is it anyway? Who else is it going to hurt? In a country that's supposedly free, this should be a fundamental right. Sources: Balanced Politics Also, CON, you're taking this way too seriously. It's a debate, not a presidential election. I respect your opinion. Thank you. By the way, the voters can vote for whoever they want. Vote for who you like! :)

5000 people took part in a poll whereby 82% supported Lord Falconer"s Assisted Dying Bill to give terminally ill, mentally competent people the legal option of assistance to die with dignity, 79% of people were religious. 44% of people even said they'd break the law and face 14 years in prison to help someone end their life. [1] A lot of people simply agree with what the majority think, however if the majority of people want rape to be illegal it doesn't mean it should be, if the majority want murder and robbery to be legal should it? The majority are not always right. My first point I made in round two is that there are a considerable number of people who are terminally ill who don't wish to die. It doesn't matter if it's not above 50%, the fact is it is possible to be terminally ill, in chronic pain, and believe that life still has meaning and value, and is worth living. Negative feelings like depression, and despair can and should be treated. There are many different treatments, not just drugs e.g. talking helps. A healthy person will want to live. People who want to die are mentally unwell, allowing someone to make a decision to end their life when in such a mental state is irresponsible. You say the main reasons patients want to die is due to their pain and them thinking they should have a right to choose. However we should be encouraging people to live no matter the degree of suffering, and encourage cures and better treatments. If we legalize assisted suicide then there is no point trying to find better treatments because the answer to pain and suffering is to just kill people. Surely it is wrong to take away people's hopes and wrong to tell people they should kill them self. In the below video, a doctor gave a terminally ill person 3-5 years to live, she is alive 8 years later. Her son likes to see her, and see him succeed yet she wants to end her life. It is selfish to kill yourself when you are loved, and everyone is loved. Her daughter is selfish too, she says her mother only has her voice, that's it, and doesn't want to see her mum suffering so wants her mum to kill herself. Her daughter says she had plans but not anymore, this must make her mother feel guilty and a burden. Nobody should feel this way. Perhaps she was saying those things to inherit money sooner. Whatever her reason she was only thinking of herself. This terminally ill woman only wants to end her life because the option exists. If it didn't exist her daughter wouldn't say those horrible things that make her mum feel like her life has no value or meaning anymore. How can the younger generation believe life has meaning when they don't believe there is when you're older or disabled? What happens when a child is terminally ill? A child isn't old enough to make decisions for them self, is it okay for a parent to choose for them? It is illegal to freeze someone who is still alive because cryotechnology is in its infancy but things can change quickly, it doesn't necessarily take 7 years, have you considered medical trials? Also it will one day in the near future be possible to store a person's consciousness on a computer chip and upload it into a robot. Who knows what the future holds. Imagine if you told someone you love that they should kill themself and a day later you find they didn't have to die, and here was a way they could have been saved from their illness, you could never forgive yourself. You don't need to believe that terminally ill patients should be given the option of assisted death in order to acknowledge they are suffering, or to show you care. You say that a patient who chooses when they die is given time to spend with loved ones, wouldn't they have more time to spend with them if they didn't kill themself? Why is it so important to know how much time you have? Most people don't know how long they have to live, who would want to know? Only a mentally ill person would look forward to dying, and providing them a date to look forward to prevents them from enjoying life, seeing the positive side. Decisions should not be based on fear, such decisions are irrational. Saving people from having a small chance of witnessing someone die slowly and painfullly is not taking the terminally ill person's feelings into consideration. People don't have an obligation to die in a way that doesn't cause distress to those who are unfortunate to watch helplessly. People should not be expected to kill themselves ever. Of course, if you tell someone they should kill themself like in the video I showed, you are saying that the persons life is no longer worth living. If it were worth living you wouldn't tell them to kill themself. Who are they to say whether someone else's life is worth living anyway? I don't understand how someone can feel incompetent as a result of not being allowed to have help killing themself, they'd definitely feel incompetent if they have help though as there are people who kill themselves without any help. Negative emotions lead to a weakened immune system [2]. This makes the body more vulnerable to illnesses including those which are terminal. Options can't control illness. Legalizing assisted death will no doubt cause more terminal illnesses. No-one can feel good about helping someone die, or receiving a time when a person can expect to die. A terminally ill patient may be visited more often in a shorter space of time, but any visitors will find it harder to be their self or enjoy the time they have with someone whose time of death they know. Would people use bereavement services after a terminally ill person's death? You mention that a terminally ill person is not the same person people once knew, and we should be sad when people can no longer do the things they used to do, but the truth is there are many things they can do which can bring a smile to their face like road trips, and maybe things they haven't done. They will only become unfamiliar if you tell them their life has no meaning or value because if they are depressed it is more difficult to overcome that. The fear of death will rise if terminally ill people can have help killing themself, as people will not be able to focus on enjoying their own life when they know the time and place someone close will die. What if a terminally ill person can't gulp the poisonous drink at the last moment? That would spread fear of death especially if you become terminally ill yourself. Having a date gives you time to fear death which you would normally not have to worry about. sources: [1] http://www.dignityindying.org.uk... [2] https://www.newscientist.com...


Question: Should the Practice of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legitimized by Law?

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not legalize euthanasia.

Contention 1: Unregulated Euthanasia and Consent Issues
I will start by highlighting the alarming statistics of euthanasia. Approximately 900 cases of euthanasia are carried out without the patient's consent each year, with 50% of all euthanasia procedures going unreported. In 2005, it was documented that 1.7% of the nation's deaths, a total of 2,410 individuals, were due to euthanasia. Shockingly, one in every five cases is performed without the patient's consent. A study in Belgium reported that 32% of euthanasia cases were conducted without consent.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument
John Keown's slippery slope argument from 2002 suggests that once a form of euthanasia is accepted, other forms, such as involuntary euthanasia, will inevitably become legal. As an example, I present the Dutch case. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association stated that euthanasia without the patient's request is considered murder or killing, not euthanasia. However, in 2001, they supported a law that legalized non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The 2001 law also allowed children aged 12-16 to be euthanized with parental consent, even though the child is not considered capable of making such a decision. The number of euthanasia cases in Belgium has doubled since 1998, and the rates of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia have increased slightly from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007.

Contention 3: Self-Ownership and Sickness Consent
Consent from a palliative specialist is crucial, but recent euthanasia cases have not been obtaining this consent. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without the consent of a palliative specialist were denied. However, from 2002-2007, that number dropped from 100% to only 9%, as only 19% of all euthanasia cases involved consulting a palliative specialist. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state she had been in for 13 years. She was

When a person is terminally ill they should be entitled to end their own life.

It is foolish to assume that life will get magically better for everyone. One should have the freedom to decide rationally on that, and it is only rational that the government assist one's decision on that. For example, euthanasia should be available to people with none-lethal disease. If the person decides that the disease will make his life miserable even though it will not take his life, then that person should have the right to access euthanasia. Of course, there can be miracles, but whether future will be better or not should be decided by the person himself. We should not impose our belief that life will magically get better. It may, but it may not. For people with depression, yes, their ability to decide rationally may be disturbed. In this case, extra caution would be very necessary, but the basic premise does not change. We should not be judging that everyone's life will certainly get better on every case. It is up to the person himself to decide that.

I am at a loss. Freeman's last round is one of stellar quality. Freeman has brought forth several great positions, but this round is a conclusion, not one for full argumentation. I have always been clear: I am not concerned with the points in judgment as much as I am with learning more from the debate itself. But I respect the position that any point I bring forward in this final round allows no response from my opponent. I generally put forth a statement that "my opponent presented arguments in his last round so I am well within DDO standards to respond." But Freeman's response requires more than that simple statement. My loss is that I must respond; Freeman deserves nothing less. I concede the conduct point by rebutting fully this round instead of concluding. His response is too well done as to deserve anything less; points be damned. Pro's points on my lack of compelling arguments notwithstanding, I find them fully rational. And, as I expected, Pro never wrote the law I asked for in the previous round; so many seem to be unwilling to make their legal principle a law. C1: I have tried for hours to access the article Pro linked but cannot read it as it keeps timing out so I must use other sources http://content.nejm.org... (I do not mean Pro is being deceitful, just that I can't access the article for some reason and I really do want to read it). Other countries: After reading and reviewing the legal procedures for these countries (above reference), I conclude that these laws have no bearing on the US Constitution, which is the point of my contention, so they are irrelevant to this debate. The legal ramifications I predict should not occur in countries without the US Constitution and US legal framework, to suggest otherwise is silly. I see no need to address this further. Pro wrote, "[E]ven tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing". I never said anything about improving their wellbeing. Allowing one to die with no pain is the best that can be offered sometimes; however, if one can be said to "suffer" which is different that just feeling pain then are they not worthy to be at least a "person" under the law meant to protect all US citizens? "It is a matter of the greatest importance that more research be conducted to better determine what it is to live with conditions that cause serious suffering other than pain. In the absence of such research, physicians might succumb to the biases of the able-bodied, who tend to think disability is much worse than disabled people actually find it. That said, the fact remains that on rare occasions, a doctor can find herself in a situation in which she has good reason to believe that her obligation to prevent suffering outweighs her duty to protect her newborn patient's life." http://www.medscape.com... Let us know when you figure it out, until then let doctors do what doctors do; provide the best care they can. Self Defense: My opponent, yet again, offered a legal argument in reference to self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense under US law (a state crime so I did not link 50 laws; the MPC will suffice in this matter). The attacker is no less human or a person and has as much of an expectation of life as anyone else. An affirmative defense such as self defense puts the protection of the potential victim's life in higher regard than one committing a crime. Disabled infants have committed no such crime. This analogy is one I do not recommend using again unless Pro is willing to prosecute infants for the crime of imperfection. At this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about law – a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate. C2: The US Constitution recognizes natural born citizens, and other citizens not born on our soil. A citizen cannot be anything other than a "person" under the law. So, yes, the US Constitution recognizes a person. Pro must remove this from the Constitution to satisfy his position. He has not even recognized the fact that he has to do so. Pro's claim against my stance of arbitrariness is a comparison of a rock to a person. Sadly for Pro, my point was a comparison between an infant that Pro found suitable and one he did not, both are alive; both are citizens. A terminal infant is more than a rock and constitutionally deserves better treatment than to be thrown away. Even animals far better than Pro's rock; as Justice Holmes said, "Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked". You made the comparison of a natural born citizen to a rock, I did not. The learned professor of philosophy, which Pro offers, did not provide the definition with Constitutional restraints in mind, but you, Pro, presented this debate in such a manner. Her definition of personhood does not pass Constitutional muster, as well formulated as it may be. And this debate is about the law in the US. Her point, absent a corollary legal definition applied to citizen/person has no bearing here. Death Panels: Unlike Sarah Palin, I did my research. She did not read the law, but I made it the focus of my position (as you made this debate a legal one). Sarah Palin could not name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v Wade, I can name over twenty. My argument is not one of a distant, unreasonable, slippery slope or ignorant misinterpretations of law from a journalism student who could not handle an interview with anyone other than Sean Hannity without embarrassing herself. Mine is one of the inabilities of proponents of "should" in applying their principles to a reasoned body of law under the US Constitution. Until you, Pro, can do so then your law should be rejected. You have not met your burden. In closing, I have the privilege of loving a person everyday who deals with the infants that others hope to never see. Her job is one of joy and heartache and I admire her for what she does and I do not think I could do it myself. If you see a labor/delivery nurse or doctor out one day, buy them a beer or shake his hand. They all deserve it. In closing, Pro has not met the burden required. No law has been presented and a proponent of a "should" statement needs to recognize and apply the offered principle to the legal framework in such a law is to be applied. "There, but for the grace of God, goes Sherlock Holmes." Very Truly Yours, SherlockMethod.

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.

I patienly waited, like my opponent asked. Forfeting wouldn't be fun or fair, so I waited. I wish my opponent best of luck. Depression: Throughout this entire debate my highlighted that depression cause you to be irrational and contemplate suicide, yet the medical community beg to differ says there are benefits to suicide. Charles Darwin, along Einstein and Edison, is one the the most influential scientist of all time. He concluded depression has a secret purpose and our medical interventions are making a bad situation even worse. Like a fever that helps the immune system fight off infection increased body temperature sends white blood cells into overdrive depression might be an unpleasant yet adaptive response to affliction. Maybe Darwin was right. This would a person more attentive and less likely to look at euthanasia for a solution. Researchers have discovered that depression is as common as the common cold. If depression really made people think irrational then we would have a much higher suicide epidemic. Depression makes a person think and rule out euthanasia as an option. Instead of going to extremes people with depression would talk to their doctor and not give euthanasia a thought as a solution. They would take anti depressants, meaning we can't include them in the pool of suicide since people with depression think more rational than the average person. [1] Saving lives: I did more research and turns out my opponent missed important details. There was in fact, like he said, 6000 donors last year, those are donors who are still alive not people who are willing to donate after they die. According to organdonor.gov, "Currently, more than 100 million people in the U.S. are signed up to be a donor sign up and join them". That is more than 33% or 1/3 Americans. [2]Just as an example, let's look at the 300 number from Oregon my opponent argued agaisnt me. Since, 1/3 Americans are organ donors that leaves 100 people organ donors from Oregon. Since 1 donor saves 8 lives, that is 800 lives saved from only 100 people who chose euthanasia. This in fact does benefit society. That 300 number is only from Oregon, think about people from other states who need organs. If a person does chose to with euthanasia, those people would save lives and leave a legacy with them, instead of being statistics who died from terminal illnesses. Cost: My opponent is being very one dimensional and not hollistic by only using the 300 number. Think about the people from other states. We are facing the worst economic collapse since The Great Depression. This puts many people at risk of losing their health insurance. This leaves ill patient with huge medical bills that put more stress on them. Some who don't have insurance use government programs such as, Medicare and Medicaid. Who pays for this? Us the taxpayers. Why would I want my tax dollars going into people who will eventually die with suffering, when that money could be going to savable patients that would contribute to society. Of all 50 states many people are not only making their families go bankrupt, they're also pushing the US into bankruptcy. All wasteful spending must be reduced, denying euthanasia is a wasteful cost. Pain: My opponent says that suicide is a sign of weakness. Forcing someone to suffer is better. So, I guess someone taking pain killers is also a sign of weakness. I think not. There is no medication that can make all pain go away. Sure, medication can take away physical pain. That leaves many patients still suffering from psychological and emotional distress. Knowing that there is a possibility you could die, possibly soon, puts tremdous anxiety on the already ill, which can make the disease they are fighting much worse. CON, also says that Cancer and AIDS is only a small sample size. Tjis is terribly illogical since 12 million Americans suffer from Cancer, that's 4% of American. [3]Also, It is estimated that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS.[4] That does not seem like a small sample size when it reaches millions. Of course, these aren't the only terminal illnesses. I would like to know where the cure is. This "research" has not led to much progess Right: In the end, it is just a person choice to commit suicide. A person's life belongs only to them, and no other person has the right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved can make such decision, and whatever decision they make should be respected. Freedom, is fundemental in America. It is the right we all are guaranteed. Suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership ownership over one's own life and body then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them. My opponent didn't deny whether or not banning euthanasia is agaisnt freedom of religion. As long as no one else is hurt we should follow our own fate. What if someone's religion says suicide is mandatory. Sure, many religions condemn suicide(Christiantiy, Islam, Judaism). Though many religions condone suicide(Confucianism, Shintoism, Jainism). [5] By saying researching on sick patients my opponent is implying that a person with a terminal illness should be forced to be tested on. That seems to deny more rights and more freedom. Overall, unfortunately if people want to kill themselves they will do it. In anyway, no matter how horrific. The government can't stop them. The only thing euthanasia is, a calm, safe, painless, compassionate way to end someone's life with digninity and freedom. Sources: [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.organdonor.gov... [3] http://m.cancer.org... [4] http://www.avert.org... [5] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... This was a really fun debate. Very stimulating. Finally, I would just like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and discussing in an orderly fashion. Good luck to my opponent and the voters. Thank you. :)

Depression My opponents point on curing is more of a red herring then anything else. When something is treated, the symptoms can disappear (like it never even happened, servepro lol). Many medicines relieve the effects of depression, and therapies are useful. The point in this, however, is they are more likely to do suicide and/or want death, and this can be treated by some pill pushing or therapy [1]. Whether or not it can be cured is a red herring. Treatment relieves the symptoms, like allergies, and prevent death. My opponent cites AIDS, this is the part I said would help my point. Euthanasia prevents any further research. Many of these people can be used for interviews etc. By basic screening and blood tests from these patients it helps research in many ways. It helps them identify aids if it can mutate, where it resides, helps them research testing (not prodding with needles, though medications formerly tested on animals so we know you don’t die, if you truly are going to die chemotherapy testing) all of this does a few things. 1) Helps others, 2) if you are truly going to die, some of the dangerous testing may heal you AND help others. Euthanasia just ruins the process. So a good way to make it non-euthanasia is if they want this, they can get it. Though I would prefer their depression is treated first. Killing many potential test subjects’ harms society, and euthanasia could seriously harm the system [2][3]. My opponent lumps together corruption. But this too is not relevant to my case. I have shown with no medical definition of “terminal” one cannot really have a set system. This is not corruption, rather shows indecisiveness in the area. And only 300 make sense, as the majority of these patients have not really been granted their request. But with no definition many of these askers could have lived for more then the 6-month time line. Unless you find a societal benefit—which you haven’t—losing even one life then hurts society. Lives My opponents point again proves my point. I agree that there is a need for organs… But I showed less then 1% of people have a donor approval (donor card? You know what I mean). That’s less then 10/800 of them… its less then one of them… based on those numbers last round only 0.002% of people are donors. Out of 800 that mean less then one person is a donor, 0.016 people. That means, at most, one of them is a donor. This is negligible. With 300 dead from euthanasia, this means 299 lives lost. Assuming some of the diagnoses where right and actually terminal, that is still a net loss. It does the opposite of saving lives. Cost This is interesting… but wrong. He says 300 less people would lower costs. 250 million people have insurance [4]. Subtracting people will have no benefit. That’s 3/250 (right?) Lets say all of them go to the hospital once a year. Each time it costs one dollar. 250 dollars. 3 off themselves. 247 dollars. That’s a .2% decrease. All Americans have healthcare (ER) meaning that percentage is lower. And less money in the industry raises cost as it means less of an economy and need for competition exists. Either way, there is no conceivable effect from my opponents 300 number. PainMy opponent now changes course as he has seen he lost the point more towards dignity. Die of dignity or let a disease kill you! Um, suicide, to me, is a sign of weakness. It shows they are scared. Can’t continue. *falls* They merely give up. But as stated many of these illnesses can be treated so well. Many of them cure. My opponent will likely talk about some cancers and AIDS, though that is a small sample size. Many of the illnesses, as proven earlier, are not even terminal. In all reality, suicide is a sign of weakness, and not a virtue. All of those who have done suicide are in my prayers, though I really think its not dignified. And if my research argument is true, that means they might be the ones to find the cure ;)RightThe quote my opponent cites was in relation to taxes, economic freedoms. The founding fathers supported many social controls [5]. Therefore it cannot apply. My opponent keeps saying that it’s unconstitutional. Again. I have shown many court cases proving there is no right to die or euthanasia, suicide, and the right to life is the only one to exist. And my opponent agrees it is not in the constitution, this concedes the argument. For a liberty to exist, it must be defined. For example states rights. It cannot he changed by interpretations or societies whims or outside sources that do not govern the constitution (like my opponents quote). So for a liberty to exist he must prove it is clearly stated in the constitution or that it can be linked to other rights logically [6]. My opponent dropped my depression analysis and they are legally forced to be left alone to euthanasia would be illegal most of the time based on that. My opponent talks about morality. Nowhere in this debate have I said it is immoral, I think. This is a red herring in attempt to get emotions. It is rhetoric. OPPONENT PLEASE READ THISok. got your attention. I am aware you can post very fast, however I please ask you wait for two days before you post your next round. Just delay it, after 48 hours post whenever you want. That is all I ask. Just delay. (needed to clarify from the PM). If there is no delay, I will be forced to FF the next round. Although argunments would still be up to the voters, I would lose conduct and an FF is no fun. So... Please delay? thanks. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.niaid.nih.gov...[3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://usgovinfo.about.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...! [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

A doctor"s function has changed over time. In the past, the doctor was a person who besides being your friend treated the diseases. Now a doctor is a stranger who combats diseases, but he/she is not always your friend. What will never change is their constant struggle against death. However, their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve their patient"s quality of life. Many times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all he/she can do is wait for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person"s rights, creating an economic burden, interfering with a doctor"s job, and increasing suffering have never been in a situation where I have to decide whether euthanasia should be applied to someone or not. But I tell you something: if I ever see myself in that kind of situation, I would have no doubt of agreeing with it. If it is the desire of the person to die, I will support him. I think that choosing how we want to die is not an option that we all get. So be sure I'll help someone on choosing when and how he wants to die. Just imagine yourself in a similar situation. Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive? Why not end this suffering if we have the power? There is no point of waiting for the person to die if there is nothing the doctors can do about it. If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish. This is why euthanasia should be legal for anyone who desires it.

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 readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent. My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j. healthpol.2008.10.003) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and "drying them off. " It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever. Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up to be on the O’Rielily Show. (. http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (. http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument. My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm. There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years. Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board. I also extend my moral decay argument. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (. http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.

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.