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

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

Contention 1: Euthanasia without Consent and Unreported Cases

The issue of euthanasia is often clouded by the disturbing reality of procedures carried out without the patient's consent. According to studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...), approximately 900 cases of euthanasia are performed annually without the consent of the patient, and half of all euthanasia procedures go unreported. In 2005, it was found that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were attributed to euthanasia, equating to 2,410 lives lost. Alarmingly, one in every five cases of euthanasia is conducted without the patient's consent (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). A study in Belgium revealed that 32% of euthanasia cases were carried out without consent.

Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument and Legalization

The slippery slope argument, as presented by Keown in 2002, suggests that once one form of euthanasia is accepted, it may lead to the legalization of more controversial practices, such as involuntary euthanasia. The Dutch experience serves as a cautionary example. Initially, in 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association stated that proceeding with euthanasia without the patient's request is equivalent to murder or killing, not euthanasia. However, by 2001, the association supported a law that legalized non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.). The law even permitted euthanasia for children aged 12-16 with parental consent, although the child's decision-making capacity is not considered

Hello everyone, Let's rap up....Contention 1A.) Contention 1 does an incredible job of stating facts, these facts include: #of euthanizations done without written or explicit consent and # of all deaths defined as euthanization. The facts that he lists all apply to either The Netherlands or Belgium as can be noted by looking at his citation, some may even be statistics from combining both countries data. There is a problem with his layout though. The problem being that contention 1 isnt an argument. It is a conglomeration of unrelated facts, the problem being not, that the facts are a conglomeration, but that these facts are not tied together to form any argument, they are simply facts, which without stated reason he calls "horrible". They have no context, no stated date for each fact, or indications as to which fact relates to which country. The citation in contention 1 of his argument indicates that all facts presented before it apply to Belgium and The Netherlands however at one point he simply says, "1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia", to which I must respond, which nation, Belgium or The Netherlands? The facts are all over the place and are inconsistent as to who and when they partain. On another note, I must correct an improper assumption which is being promoted. That assumption being that EUTH without consent means, EUTH against the person's will. That would be plain murder, what this means is that the euthanization was done without explicit written legal consent. These people indicate in some manner that they wish to end their life. As for the ones that were unreported, this is because most of the doctors who preformed them didn't consider them to be acts of EUTH.B.) Now I will argue against claims made in Lannan's last speech. Firstly Let me state that I did not simply attack the validity of his sources, the source bit was simply an add-on which I will readdress momentarily. I refuted Lannan's contention 1 by stating that there is no real argument to refute save possibly an assumption that EUTH without consent means EUTH against the patients' will, which I have already covered. As I have said, There is no argument in contention 1, there is only a conglomeration of facts which do not logically relate to one another. This relates to contention 2 so you will see what I mean when I discuss logical fallacies later on.Now I would like to talk about my opponents author in contention 1, J. pereira. Right off the bat, lets talk about that list of credible studies which J. takes a part in. Just because he is in credible studies does not mean that he is in general credible, in how many of those studies was he the main author/ researcher. Secondly, just because he is an expert in one field of study, does that imply that he is an expert in the field of The Slippery-Slope of PAS? certainly not. I'll let the audience know that J. is a Chemical Biotech patent attorney with a PhD in genetics. So how is he a credible source? -http://www.oblon.com...Now I'll move onto Mrs.Terri Schiavo. Here is your claim: "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"I would like to let everyone know that Mrs. Terri Schiavo never recovered from her vegetative state of 13 years. Her tubes were removed after a very, and I mean very long series of legal/judicial and executive events to determine whether or not to remove her feeding tubes took place. In the end the courts overruled George Bush's legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tubes were pulled, she never showed any sign of recovery and died a few days later. The woman you reference who recovered from her unresponsive state, of 70 days, was a woman named a Mrs. Kate Adamson in 1995. She had her tubes pulled in 2005 and immediately afterward began to recover, They plugged her back in and she fully recovered, she lives to this day. My question is, even if you were right, how would this hurt my case? if anything the events of Kate Adamson confirm the resolution. Kate was in a completely unresponsive state and was unable to communicate in any form or fashion. Now think about this. If you were stuck in a vegetative state fully aware for the rest of your life, would you really want to be alive, trapped in the cage of your body? If it were me I would be inwardly begging for Physician Assisted Suicide or the like. Contention 2, Oh the fallaciesMy opponent crafts this arguments soley on three things: an assumption, the 'post HOC' fallacy and the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy.The Slippery Slope fallacy: Post HOC fallacy: Here are some facts my opponent uses to craft his argument:a.) The definition of euthinasia at one point simply meant killing people with terminal illness while now it means a painless death to help the terminally ill.b.) The number of people being euthanized in one or two countries has dramatically increasedc.) One medical assosiation supported very strict definitions of euthinasia and later supported less strict definitionsPlease review the Post HOC fallacy, in any of these facts does it really follow that b was caused by a? in other words, does the fact that a definition has changed or that one medical association supported less criminally strict definitions of EUTH really imply that the changes were the result of decreasing moral attitudes? Could it likely be the result of anything else? Yes, and there has been no concrete proofs, inductive nor deductive reasoning's applied to suggest anything else. Please note that these are the result of an unfounded assumption. As for b the same applies because to me all b means is that the Belgians are finally giving people their right to death with dignity not introduced some initiative to begin the genocide of the weak and sick.Here are some common examples of the slippery slope fallacy: "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!" "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die." "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you." "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!" "Once we start letting homosexuals get married, soon enough we'll be allowing sons to marry their fathers and dogs to marry monkeys!"Now here is a quote from my opponent's speech: "It all started with legalizing PAS and...now, people are able to euthanize children [soon enough involuntary EUTH will be legal and rampant]" Contention 3 "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."My opponent doesn't think that I have refuted contention 3 I will now refute that claim by showing how I have indeed refuted his third contention...refute... (had to throw it in there one more time)Premise: "In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain"Warrant: you haven't supported your own claim with evidence so you must "provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3."Premise + warrant in opposition of a claim = refutation Studies and evidence I'm running out out space so i'll make this quick. Here I refute Lannan's round 3 studies on professional PAS opinions. His came from 2008 from 2k doctors in one medical assosiation. Mine from 21k doctors in dec 2014 internationally. Clearly my evidence has been consistently better and myargumentation aswell. Thank you for reading

I hope this can be an enjoyable experience for the both of us. Arguments:1. Less people die. My opponent correctly suggests that, in recent years, children and infants have died less frequently from disease. This is due to great advances in medicine. However, those great advances in medicine have also brought other, much less desirable, effects. Thalidomide: Thalidomide was first sold in Germany as an over the country drug in 1957. It was used in the hopes that it would prevent morning sickness in pregnant women, which it did. Unfortunately, however, it had the side effect of deforming the limbs of unborn children whose Mothers had taken the drug. Of the 10,000 children born with limbs that were malformed because of the drug, only 5,000 survived. Thalidomide was a case of drug companies destroying the lives of 10,000 people without malicious intent. It was also, as my opponent will doubtlessly point out, over 50 years ago. Whilst this is true, there are much more recent, yet less infamous, issues with the advances of medicine which have undoubtedly made lives worse. One example of this is in a BBC news report from 2006:[1] 'Six men remain in intensive care after being taken ill during a clinical drugs trial in north-west London. The healthy volunteers were testing an anti-inflammatory drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital when they suffered a reaction. Relatives are with the patients, who suffered multiple organ failure. Two men are said to be critically ill. 'This shows that the advancement of medicine has not necessarily made lives better, in fact, it could be said that, although more people now survive diseases, their quality of life is lower. An example of this would be the euthanasia debate. In the past, your doctor would help you survive disease until the point where you were in insufferable pain which could not be alleviated. At this point, your doctor could, and often would, make the decision to ease your passing with an overdose of drugs (normally morphine) with your consent. [2] 'Throughout classical antiquity, there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony, and physicians complied by often giving their patients the poisons they requested. 'This was made illegal in the UK in 1961, meaning that those suffering from a painful, debilitating and terminal disease may not make the decision to end their life with help if they're unable to do it alone. This is not just in the UK, euthanasia is illegal in almost every country in the world. [3] 'As of 2014, euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. 'Despite even this, the increase in world population is not inherently a good thing in itself. It has led to oppressive but necessary policies such as the Chinese one child policy, which has seen the murder of many young girls in the hopes that the parents will have a son. Thus, my argument is that whilst life expectancy has gotten longer, quality of life has not.2. Better technology for everybodyMy opponent again correctly suggests that technology has not only improved over the years, but has also become more available to the average peasant (citizen). However, this is not necessarily a good thing. My opponent asserts: 'Not to mention we have much cheaper methods than trains--with our new subways all around--and better airplanes--from Wright's first to now, fighter jets and humongous airliners-- transportation is cheaper, easier, and faster than ever. With better transportation, countries can trade more easier, and people can get from place to place easier as well. The world is definitely changing for the better with these technological innovations. 'This is all very well and good, however, the increase in 'better transport' has massively increased the consumption of oil and other natural resources all around the world. Here we see the increase in diesel consumption per year in just the USA. This data only goes up to the year 1998, however, I can tell you that the fuel consumption in the year 2013 in just the USA [4]'about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline. 'This tremendous increase in the use of natural resources has resulted in a tremendous increase in greenhouse gases emmitted into the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide. As you can see here, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially from 1960-2010. This is resulting in a 'warming' on a global scale. An effect that is commonly known as 'global warming. 'This has resulted in the extinction of countless species and will result in the extinction of countless more. [5]'Polar bears have started drowning as they have had to swim longer distances between ice flows, and the U. S. Geological Survey has predicted that if the Arctic ice cape continues melting at its current rate, “two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century. ”7 Of course, it is not just the polar bear that is affected—one study predicts that a quarter of land animals and plants could become extinct because of global warming over the next 45 years.8'[6]'Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020. But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said. 'My opponent implies that communication has become easier in the past few hundred years with the invention of increasingly better, more convenient and inexpensive telephones, right up to the mobile phone. I would agree with him, but that does not mean that the quality of communication has gone up. In fact, I would argue that the quality of communication has definitely gone down. I want to transport my reader back to a time that is no longer in living memory. A time where telephones did not exist and the easiest form of long-range communication was a letter. I want to transport my reader back to the 1830's, to a young girl called Victoria, who would later be known as Queen Victoria. She wished to write her sister, whom had gone to live with the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a letter. It had been many years since she had been allowed to see her sister, and after writing the letter she waited excitedly for a reply. Can you imagine her dismay when, a few days later, she opened an envelope addressed to her from her sister to see nothing but the letter 'K' written upon an almost blank piece of paper? This, of course, never happened. The cost of sending a letter, whilst not expensive, was costly enough to ensure detailed communication with ones friends and loved ones which invoked a feeling of closeness that is not as often seen in the communications of today. This is primarily because now, with the invention of social media and texting, it is so incredibly easy to lose the sense of connection that communication held in the time of letters. Lengthy and structured replies are no longer seen as important, formality is an art that is often no longer understood or seen to be necessary. The phenomenon of the 'K' response is often wrote about, it is well recognised for its rude abruptness, yet many people still continue to use it because, with the invention of easier communications, there is little practical reason not to. Thus, I argue that whilst the quantity of communication has increased, the quality of communication has gone down. As has, therefore, the quality of friendships and relationships. More arguments next round. Sources: [1]. http://news.bbc.co.uk...;[2]http://euthanasia.procon.org...;[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.eia.gov...;[5]http://www.greeniacs.com...;[6]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;

‘Logical’ argument My opponent’s syllogism’s conclusions are flawed. If you assume the points, it may seem like a humane conclusion, however, the assumption that the points are correct--and then the conclusion--is inaccurate. My opponent’s whole arguments rests on a few things: the patients choose death, and that euthanasia will reduce their pain in the long run. Both of these assumptions are debatable. Patients who ‘choose’ death generally do so with bad reasoning. In fact, a significant amount of people who choose death are mentally ill. Research argues that if you are depressed, you are at least 4.1 times more likely to request for euthanasia, according to research of cancer patients with 3 months to live [1]. Further, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]. Further, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records ‘asked for death’ with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first [3]. Recent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient [4]. A review of medical opinion shows that good pain medications can make life fairly painless, not the painful picture which my opponent construes. The vast majority of patients who suffer suffer because their doctor has not been properly instructed as to how to administer pain medication. Doctors fear to give too much pain medication as it may cause death, though this fear is often imagines. Doctors generally give medications PRN (per required need), but this leads to less satisfactory pain alleviation. Dosages vary based upon pain extent, and often underestimate the amount of medication needed, due to their lack of education on the issue. Undertreatment of pain is another leading cause for euthanasia requests. It may be thought that pain medications must be an expertise thing, this is not the case; most medicines capable of making the illness painless--therefore making euthanasia obsolete--are straightforward. Doctors need to understand that high dosages of opioids will cure the pain and are wholly safe when administered properly. Cancer patients often need 20-60mg of morphine every 4 hours. If palliative care is properly admitted, the need for pain relief through death minimizes [5]. Therefore, education of doctors, not the legalization of physician assisted suicide, will be superior in extending the life spans of patients and reducing pain. Economic Impacts Calculations show the savings per euthanasia are about 10,000 per victim. When this is properly accounted for, we would save about $627 million each year. My opponents research uses numbers including the mentally ill, who should not be allowed to receive euthanasia in the first place. So, assuming we can properly bar these people from being euthanized, this is the proper savings amount. This number is less than 1/3 of one percent of the US’s health care costs. The economic savings is very limited, and surely not worth the lives lost [6]. Other things would be far better at reducing healthcare costs: reducing regulations which amount to $169 billion of added cost to the industry each year [7], expand HSAs, push malpractice reform, privatize medicaid, and shrink the HHS would all be much better options to reducing the economic impacts of health care costs than killing patients [8]. Voluntary deaths will always occur There is no doubt in my mind that there will be the occasional euthanized patient. My opponent’s study is flawed in the fact it doesnt account for patients with mental illness. As noted, mental illness is the main cause for the decision of death, which is technically ‘voluntary’, or would be in the study my opponent cited. However, if the request was made on their basis for wanting to die due to depression, we can see how this should not be considered a true case of voluntarism, as the decision was made outside of a solid state of mind. My opponent claims euthanasia was a cause for 0.8% of deaths in the Netherlands before legalization, whereas his study noted that after legalization it was 1.7% of deaths were caused by euthanasia and .1% physician assisted suicide, totalling 1.8%, a 1% increase. Further, the rate of euthanasia has steadily increased since legalization, meaning legalization has led to more acceptance of the idea of euthanasia [9]. Further, a more recent study argues that now 2.8% of deaths are caused by euthanasia in the Netherlands [10]. Conclusion: Physician assisted suicide/euthanasia actually will harm palliative care, however, palliative care reduces, if not eliminates, the moral case my opponent construed: in fact, pain can be controlled without death and rather with proper education. The economic cost, enacting laws my opponent would pass if he was in control (has to be voluntary, not for mental illness unless treated) would actually lead to very minimal savings, and in fact, other methods that will increase quality of care--which don't involve killing patients--are superior in reducing healthcare costs. And finally, although even in areas where euthanasia is illegal euthanasia still occurs, the fact is, legalizing it leads to its practice being much more common. Even in the Netherlands where the laws prohibiting it were very unenforced, legalization led to a skyrocketing in its use. Imagine how rare it would be if the Netherlands kept their anti-euthanasia culture which they had in WW2. Euthanasia should remain illegal, resolution negated. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://www.nationalreview.com... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. http://medicine.emory.edu... 6. http://www.levinlaw.com... 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.ipi.org... 9. http://www.life.org.nz... 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I accept! I won't post an argument now but I just want to make a point clear - if it is legal, it would be regulated and there would be laws as to who can and cannot be put down. It wouldn't be as simple as "I want to die," and then someone injects you with whatever and you die.I'm hoping we can agree that it would be regulated.Thanks!

I would state no that Laura should not be allowed to kill herself There are many reasons why we should not let people allow themselves to just die unless they have a condition that is untreatable and they cannot live with it Ive given you many reasons above why life can improve but they just need time But ill state my secondary reason as well We as a society cannot condone or encourage the act of death. Death is wrong and should not be looked at with ease or even a way out Doing that will cause more deaths in the US that could've have been prevented.

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

Euthanasia, originating from the Greek word "euthanatos", literally means "an easy death" or "dignified death". From my Atheist point of view, I believe Euthanasia is a very complex topic as there are many different debates and views surrounding the delicate matter. These views mainly encompass Church teachings, Biblical teachings as well as other religious views. Due to the magnitude in abundance of variety of forms of Euthanasia, my opinion for each will be wavered as such. Firstly, from the Bible's Decalogue states clearly "Do not murder". This absolutist approach ensures to many people, mainly Christians, that because Euthanasia is essentially murdering, it is wrong. The Roman Catholic Church also teaches around the notion of the "Sanctity of Life". This is the teaching that life is sacred and a gift from God, and thus, should not be interfered with. Tampering with life i.e. Euthanasia could hold the idea of "playing God" which many do not appeal to. The Bible states "He knitted me in my mother's womb" and "Imago Deo (We are made in the image of God)" to help support the idea of the Sanctity of Life. Being a non-believer, the notion of the Sanctity of Life does not appeal to me and so I completely disregard it. Instead I base my views on what is known as the Quality of Life. For instance, in the situation of Voluntary Euthanasia, whereby it is the full decision of the ill person to die, I believe that it is completely acceptable. The Human Rights Declaration of Independence 1776 states that every human is entitled to "freedom, liberty and justice". Through this, I believe that humans should have the authority of choosing their own death due to their freedom and consequentially I dismiss the idea of "Playing God". For the case of Non Voluntary, I believe that this decision should be entirely based upon the notion of the "Quality of Life". For this case, many people are mainly in a vegetative state i.e. a coma, or full paralysis from the neck down and as a consequence are unable to communicate with the outside world. Seeing as the patient cannot communicate I believe it is up to the relatives to decide. To conclude I would agree that Non Voluntary Euthanasia should be allowed as the Quality of the patients Life is clearly very low. However I believe that Active Euthanasia should be allowed because I see humans should be able to decide when they want to die due to their free will, and this decision should be respected. Jesus' teaching of "love thy neighbour" has backed up this notion. The famous Christian Philosopher, Joseph Fletcher, devised the ethical theory, "Situation Ethics" which held the idea that any action was morally right provided the action promoted the most loving thing to the individual. To me, allowing people to be able to choose when they die, in the case of Euthanasia, is the most loving thing as ultimately, they have the full right over their life.

Regardless. Once you put down that one can choose to die, what do you do if that does become an issue in the court system and justice system. Lets sy someone is murdered and the person says that the victim wanted to die, what grants the doctor more powerful than a criminal why should a doctor be able to take the life. If anything the person should be taking his own life. It should be just suicide but this is about Euthanasia. Rebuttal"what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option?" Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.http://www.ethicsforschools.org...That is from the site i introduced here."We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do.Then you can not establish order or maintain a society. If we should not tell someone what they can or can not do then we should not tell people they can not murder, assault and things of that nature. Regardless of wether it is consensual it is still technically murder. Just as if i have a friend that asks me to kill them and i do then it is murder. Its under the same juristiction. "how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that?"Again it can be noted that doctors dealing with terminally ill patients, notice that the patients suffer from depression and lack of self worth. What if death is not what they want? What if they just want the pain to go away which as stated above can be temporarily aleiviated."If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period." This goes along with medical ethics. Doctors are here to help save lives regardless. You still have not show why it "needs to be" like that. Your argument is based around "if someone is in pain they have the right to end their life." 1. What about suicidal teenagers, adults, kids. You might say "well they are not terminally ill" but, since depression is classified as a mental disorder and one trys to take his or her own life that is the same boundries as terminally ill. That person is gonna try to kill themselves and its a matter of time before they do. So, do we allow it or try to fight it and help it? If one wanted to go as technical to say "everyone is terminally ill" one could. We are all guranteed to die and that death should be prolonged when it comes to terminally ill patients. Im sure there were millions of people in modern times who wished death could have been prolonged. We should not undermine the research and allow so much power to a doctor in these situations.My argument stands as1. It undermines medical research2. There are ways to allievate the symptoms and fight it3. Terminally ill patients often suffer from depression (http://jco.ascopubs.org...)4. Contradicts right to live.The second link is a study i found interesting that talks about terminally ill patients and how depression plays a huge part in decision making.

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...

Firstly, I would like to deal with the argument put forward by my opponent that the Gallup poll which returned a result in favour of voluntary euthanasia "is a pathetic excuse for a poll". Perhaps my opponent would feel more comfortable if I used results from state government-run ballots as evidence (no federal ballot has yet occurred). In 1997, 60% of Oregonian voters endorsed a law which allowed "terminally-ill adults to obtain lethal prescription". [1] In 2008, 57.82% of Washington voters approved a measure "allowing certain terminally-ill competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions". [2] Returning to the issue of privately-run polls, I find it surprising that my opponent would resort to the argument that the poll 'wasn't run properly' to rebut the results. Several other privately-run polls have returned results in favour of legalising euthanasia, and I doubt my opponent would dare to claim that every single one of these polls had major flaws in their operation. I will cite a few of these polls here. A piece of 1996 text reports that approximately two-thirds of poll respondents are in favour of legalising euthanasia in at least some circumstances (terminally-ill patient experiencing pain, etc. ). [3] A 2006 journal claims that "Americans have consistently favored the freedom to end one's life when the perceived quality of life has significantly diminished. .. " [4] In another Gallup poll, this one surveying 1,003 adult Americans, found that 71% support euthanasia in the case of terminally-ill patients. [5]. So, my opponent may challenge the validity of one poll, but he would not dare to challenge the validity of the several polls I have cited here. Public opinion is clearly in favour of legalising euthanasia, and law-makers should act to reflect the opinions of the public. My opponent claims that "people with physical handicapps [sic]. .. could simply starve to death. .. ". It takes the average person four to six weeks to starve to death. [6] The symptoms of starvation include diarrhea, rashes, hallucinations, insomnia, [7] vomiting, impaired immunity (such that other diseases may be acquired, furthering the suffering for the patient) [8], hypothermia, depression, anxiety and heart attack. [9] This places the patient in an even more undignified position than previously. If diarrhea or vomiting occurs, the quadriplegic patient would not be able to clean the waste off their body. Imagine experiencing this for over a month. Life would be even more hellish than previously. In contrast, if euthanasia was legalised, such a terminally-ill patient would be able to receive an injection and pass away almost instantly in a peaceful state, without waiting for over a month to relieve themselves from the pain. To conclude my case, I would like to address the questions that my opponent posed to me in the previous round. Firstly, we are not debating whether a healthy person has the "right to die". I would like to remind my opponent of the inclusion of the term "terminally-ill" in the debate topic. However, if I were to address this point briefly, I would direct my opponent to his argument in Round 1 of this debate, where he stated that if a person could "muster up the strength to commit suicide on his own (e. g. hanging, slashing of the wrists) then he may do so. His "right to death" is not being abridged, as death is still an option to him. " The difference with terminally-ill patients is that they are often not able to commit suicide by their own accord due to factors such as immobility, age, etc. To address the second question posed by my opponent, no, I do not believe that relieving a terminally-ill patient of their pain by allowing them to pass away devalues human life. Killing somebody who wishes to continue living is another situation altogether. However, somebody who no longer wishes to live should be able to have their wishes respected. In response my opponent's third question, I would like to make clear what a terminal illness is. It appears that my opponent may be under the impression that a terminal illness is always accompanied by some kind of mental impairment from the wording of their third question. In most cases, a terminal illness does not affect the mental capacity of the patient at all. In instances such as cancer, the brain continues to function as usual. Just like a terminally-ill patient has the mental capacity to write a will or even vote, they have the mental capacity to exercise their right to die. Finally, I would like my opponent to consider the words of Bob Dent, a 66-year-old prostate cancer sufferer from Australia who died under a short-lived euthanasia law there in 1996. 'If I were to keep a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted. If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny the right to me to use it. ' [10] As this will be my last chance to argue on this topic during this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for such worthy opposition and wish him well in his future endeavours. Sources [1] . http://bluebook.state.or.us... [2] . http://www.vote.wa.gov... [3] . http://archinte.ama-assn.org... [4] . http://heinonline.org...= [5] . http://www.gallup.com... [6] . http://www.professorshouse.com... [7] . http://chestofbooks.com... [8] . http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com... [9] . http://www.diagnose-me.com... [10] . http://www.nytimes.com...


Question: Should Euthanasia or Doctor-Assisted Suicide be Lawful?

Contention 1: Unreported and Non-consensual Euthanasia. Disturbing statistics reveal that approximately 900 euthanasia cases annually proceed without the patient's consent, with 50% of these procedures going unreported. In 2005, 1.7% of national deaths, totaling 2,410 individuals, were attributed to euthanasia, with one in every five cases conducted without consent. A Belgian study reported that 32% of euthanasia cases lacked consent. Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument. Keown's 2002 argument suggests that once euthanasia is accepted, it paves the way for involuntary euthanasia to become legal. The Dutch example illustrates this, with the Royal Dutch Medical Association initially defining euthanasia without consent as murder. However, by 2001, they supported a law legalizing non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, even permitting children aged 12-16 to be euthanized with parental consent. Since 1998, euthanasia cases in Belgium have doubled, with the definition of euthanasia evolving from killing in 1950 to a quick and painless death in 1981. This shift in perspective raises the question: "Have we forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" Contention 3: Self-Ownership and Sickness. The importance of consent from a palliative specialist is often overlooked, with recent cases in Belgium showing a decline from 100% to only 9% contact with a palliative specialist between 2002-2007. In 2003, Terri Schiavo's recovery from a vegetative state challenged perceptions of terminal illness. Dr. Dimancescu's program in New York has significantly increased the recovery rate from comas by 91%. Under the principle of self-determination, only those in a clear state of mind should decide on euthanasia. Sickness can impair judgment, leading to decisions made under unbearable pain. True self-determination requires mental clarity to make life-altering decisions. Anti-euthanasia advocate Jeremy Bethem argues that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should guide right and wrong. An individual's value to the community must be weighed against their personal suffering. Even in extreme pain, one's ability to choose between life and death may be compromised, potentially harming the community by depriving it

People have a choice to to decide when to die. It's my body so I can decide what to do with it. I should not be prevented from killing myself when I am suffering. I would rather die gracefully than to wither away in front of my loved ones.

The debate was originally intended to be about whether or not it should legal at all but no I do not forfeit. I do not believe just anyone should be able to go to a physician and end their life. Many teens choose suicide because they think their problems are just too great and that their life is never going to improve but those of us that make it past our teen years look back and realize how trivial our problems really were. Of course if someone truly feels they have nothing left to live for they don't really need a physicians help to end it do they. Not so much an elder stuck in a nursing home bed 24/7 whom euthanasia is generally pertaining to or for any terminally sick person. We can't stop the vast majority of people but that doesn't mean we should just say o well and help them end it.

Firstly i would like to appoligize for my grammer. Sorry but i have always been like this. I will attempt to try to clean it up but that is all i can do. And yes i really did graduate high school my special ed qualification allowed me to get thru this and worse then this is my handwriting. Ok it has always rejected this and it is true. But acording to Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health if i dont give you permission to help me and you do it is considerd assault [1] there for causing harm. Mean while the erson must then go without food, water, medication and other life giving items and slowly die. Also oregon remains the only state that allows assisted suicide by statute. [1] And as for your argument of of time to peoples lack of time with family and chances of survival. This is why two physicans must agree to life being out of reach. And the order can only be given by the sick person or his family if he is unable to speak.[1] So it is that persons right to choose if they want time with there family first or not. So in the end i ask you is it better to assault the person or let him suffer more from lack of bodily needs or to allow them to go with out any pain what so ever

The US national library of medicine did a study on the attitude of terminally ill patients toward euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In this study they had 70 patients. 32 men and 38 women with a median survival of 44.5 days. 73% of these patients believed that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. The main reasons for choosing this option where pain and their right to choose. As for the pain. Yes it can be managed, but that does not mean the pain will go away. The further into the illness the patient is, the more pain there will be because of the illness spreading and taking over their body. Drugs can only control so much, and a doctor can only give so much medicine before it becomes dangerous. By dangerous I mean too much medicine could cause an overdose, or could cause other side effects such as difficulty breathing which would add more pain for the patient. As for freezing the patient, I am not sure what you mean, but I am going to assume you are talking about cryogenic ally freezing. To be cryogenically frozen the patient must first be pronounced dead. It is illegal to cryogenically freeze someone who is still alive. There are scientist and doctors out there who are always looking for a cure to every known disease out there. however, it takes time to find a cure, and once found it takes an average of 7 years to get the drug into the market. Given how most terminal patients only have 6 months to live, they won't have time to get the drug. Some illnesses do take longer then 6 months to kill, such as aids. However, most patients don't think about ending their suffering, or don't want to end their suffering until it is too much for them to handle. There are certain medical things a doctor looks at to determine the amount of time a terminal patient has left such as how far a cancer has spread and how fast the illness is taking over someone's body. They might not always be accurate, but it is only a guess, which most of the times is pretty accurate. it might not be accurate right down to the last second or minute or hour, but it is close. Selfish is defined as lack of consideration for another. in the case of a person not letting someone make the decision to end their pain is selfish because they are not considering the fact that the person is suffering. With assisted death, the patient can choose when to end their suffering. That would give the patient time to spend with their loved ones and they would know how much time they have left with them. It would also save the patients family from having to watch their loved one suffer in pain. Respect is defined as deep admiration for someone. when you respect the patients decision to end their pain it is not sending a message that their life is less precious than anyone Else's. It is saying that you respect that person's decision. They have a right to say what happens in their life. to say that they don't have a decision is sending a bad message to others. it is kind of like saying you don't think they can make their own decision, as if they were incompetent. Legalizing assisted death would not cause more terminal illnesses. If it is legalized it gives the terminally ill patient more options. It gives them control of the illness. They won't lose respect for themselves because they are given another option. Saying that a terminally ill patient at the end of there life is not the person you once knew is not devaluing the patient. it is simply stating that the person who once was able to run miles without stopping, loved to laugh and hang out with friends, and paint, is no longer able to do that. they lost the things they loved and once looked forward to doing every day. yes they still have their family, but they can't do anything with them like they could before the illness which causes sadness. You would be watching someone who once was happy and always had a smile slowly wither away in the pain into someone unfamiliar to you. Their is nothing to fear but fear itself. so why should someone fear death, and not knowing when they will die? Giving the patient the option to end their pain would put them more at ease and give them time not to fear, or lessen the fear of death. http://zidbits.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.skirsch.com...

"While they did say this, there are still other reasons why someone would like to take their own life. It could be of personal loss, of crippling debt, and so on." I understand that people have problems. We all do. But murdering ourselves isn't the way to deal with those problems. People should get help by either seeing professional help, talking to their family members, and by talking to God. Religion has been known to keep people happy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). "If the person wants to do it, they should have the freedom to do it. The First Amendment of the United States says that you have freedom of speech, whether it be audible or body language." The first amendment gives people freedom of speech but says nothing about the right to murder ourselves. The thing about body language is completely absurd and I don't know how anyone could infer that from the first amendment. Your link didn't even support that claim. "The counterargument, by philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) is that, if such is the case, then to save someone"s life is also to deride God's prerogatives." The statement makes no sense at all. God is not given rights (or prerogatives). God is already completely free to do whatever he wants since he created everything. Saving someones life would be fulfilling God's command to love our neighbors as ourselves instead of letting them murder themselves. "Is the Church telling us that God would punish you for not wanting to suffer any pain anymore?" God wouldn't punish us for having the desire to not suffer anymore but he would punish people for committing murder. By the way, God also promises an eternity in paradise for those who choose to follow him which will make any amount of suffering on earth look like nothing. "What if the reason they want to kill themselves is that their family turned their back on them, or they have no family? These can certainly mean that no one would care what happened to them." Well, that is a different case. But I was referring to the people that did have family members. That said, no one should commit suicide because it is against the law, God says not to do it, and because it does have an affect on some person eventually since it will cost someone money. "Is that a way to talk about someone who's ending their life long struggle with emotional/physical pain?" Says the person who just wants them to murder themselves instead of dealing with their problems. Hey, if you don't care about them enough to help them with their issues then I don't see why it is a big deal to mention that suicides cost people lots of money. "What about the people that do? Even if it is an impulse, they still do it. It's their choice." Who says they have the right to make that choice? God and the constitution doesn't give people to right to murder themselves. People have the ability to murder themselves but they do not have the right to do this horrible deed. Had fun with this debate. My other debates sometimes drag on too long but this one was nice and short.

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

I negate the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because if it was legal in all states a lot of people would be dead just because they don't want to live.

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...

I shall present my argument. You argued that active Euthanasia should be allowed to be administered, as the choice of one's death should lie with oneself. I disagree. Firstly, if the choice of dying is to be left to oneself and the person decides it is time to die, would not it be considered as suicide instead? And is suicide morally correct? Secondly, you mentioned quality of life being the measure of whether Euthanasia should or can be administered. However, who is to judge whether the quality of life is low enough to kill a person? The person himself, you might say. However, is it not wrong to say that sometimes human beings make mistakes? Would human beings start choosing the easy way out, and instead of fighting it out with any illnesses at all, chooses to die instead? What makes their decision a right decision and not a decision where, should they still be alive, they would regret in the future? On the point of Involuntary Euthanasia, I oppose of the idea to be based entirely on the notion of the quality of life. As I've mentioned in my active Euthanasia argument, what measures the quality of life? What is, then, considered low enough to administer Euthanasia? Even more so, in this case, without the patient's consent. You mentioned that it is one's freedom and rights to decide when and how, he wants to die. Am I not right in saying that, by arguing that in the case of Involuntary Euthanasia, where it is administered by the relatives when the quality of life is deemed as being too low, we are removing or denying the person himself from deciding whether he wants to live or not, hence removing his power of choice and freedom in deciding how he wants to live or end his own life? I have not talked about the Sanctity of Life, which Pro has dismiss and disregarded, therefore I shall not touch on it. With everything tabled, I strongly oppose to the view of allowing Euthanasia, as the consequences that may be incurred from it, may be unthinkable.

I feel like my opponent misunderstand what I wrote. I never claimed that I had made two distinct points. In the beginning of my opening case, I bolded the statement that personal autonomy and prohibition on euthanasia were at odds. I then proceeded to respond to two objections that one could bring to that statement, namely that they are not at odds or that we do not have personal autonomy to begin with. Before I move on to refuting my opponent's points I will defend my own standing point that one cannot respect another's personal autonomy while denying them the right to end their lives when they wish to. The only evidence my opponent brings to the contrary is that "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." Put simply, the argument against personal autonomy goes that because one group regularly violates it, it never really existed. Imagine for a moment that a man steals your wallet from your packet. You promptly wrestle with him to get it back and as you do this he repeats over and over, "What's wrong? That guy over there just got mugged too! Everyone has their rights violated and things stolen so we must have never had those rights or property to begin with!" Would any person in their right mind agree with this? Furthermore, in my original argument, I asked my opponent why he thought that a casual observer had more of a right to another's body then they did, providing that you are not hurting anyone else with your body. I searched through my opponent's round and found no answer. He only continued the mantra that no one in their right mind would want to die when they don't have to and so patients requesting euthanasia should be stripped of the right. But now on to my opponent's case.Patients requesting euthanasia are depressed.My opponent writes that "I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue being Euthanized after they were curedof this depression." But why is this even relevant? I am not arguing that it is wise to request euthanasia. I have never been terminally ill or in immense pain to want that. I am arguing that even if someone's decision could be harmful to themselves in the long run, no one has any right to stop them, so long as they do not hurt other's in the course of killing themselves.Furthermore, I can wholy concede that the majority of euthanasia requesting patients are clinically depressed and still be in the right. It is because of the classification of depression as compared to other mental disorders. Depression, while having serious effects at times, is not the same as schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders where people cannot always be held responsible for their actions. If depression-afflicted patients can really not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own persona affairs, then we must also barr depressed patients from making other life decisions that they would not make in their right minds such as getting married, having children, or choosing a career. What is the difference. In both cases, I might disagree with their choice and so I use the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder to control their own private actions.On a further note, the fact that my opponent tried to use the fact that people's personal autonomy is already violated by the government makes his main point completely unnecessary. He writes that "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." Notice that in the darkened part of the sentence, my opponent mentions that it is already illegal to end one's life. So by his own rationale against personal autonomy(that the military alrady violates it), his main point is made completely irrelevant. For if the draft proves we are not autonomous agents then the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state. So my opponent must either drop his main point(which doesn't help his case anyways since it doesn't autonomy supersedes mental condition) or drop his argument against personal autonomy(which would again make his first point irrelevant).Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched.My opponent argues that I did not provide reason for one to believe that terminal diseases would not be cured for decades to come. But of course, as this is his own point, the onus is on him to show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. His two sources were the fact that over 1/2 of cancer drugs in the last few years have made it to the market within half a year(irrelevant since I am talking about cures for these diseases, not something to help the pin or slightly elongate their life) and the fact that clinical trials are needed for cures or treatments to be found.On this last point I do agree. Drugs need to be tested before they can be administered but I do not see how this point is relevant. My opponent brought no evidence to suggest that all or even the majority of terminally ill patients would request physician assisted suicide. Patients who do wish to live and keep on fighting would no doubt volunteer for clinical trials as they do now. Legalizing euthanasia would not automatically make them suicidal.My opponent ends by asking why something that "would hinder medical research and end human life"? Of course my opponent brought zero evidence to suggest that the legalization of euthanasia would make all terminally ill patients suicidal. Also, this particular life ending practice is not the same as murder or even abortion. This is a wholly voluntary act by someone who surely has the right more than anyone. My opponent's only reason why they be able to is because they are not in their right mind and so are incapable of making decisions. But do we take away depressed people's licenses? Do we allow them to marry, to have children, to live just like the rest of us? If my opponent wishes to counter this, he must drop his faulty rationale of mental incompetence and concede that his main point has been completely refuted.I urge voters to see past my opponent's argument that the depressed cannot properly make life decisions or that we're right on the verge of curing terminal diseases. We must accept that people have the right to kill themselves, whether we agree with the decision or not and that legalizing euthanasia is not going to cause every terminal patient to end their lives. My opponent has brought no valid reason to either show that prohibition of euthanasia can coexist wih personal autonomy or that I have more of a right over your body than you do.